Preamble

The House stet at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ABERDEEN CORPORATION (FISH MARKET) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Aberdeen Corporation (Fish Market) (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act), presented by Mr. Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

EDINBURGH TRADES MAIDEN FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Edinburgh Trades Maiden Fund (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act), presented by Mr. Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

B.A.O.R. (German Civilian Employees)

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many German civilians are employed by the British Army of the Rhine; and what is the estimated cost for the current year.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): At 1st April, 1969, the latest date for which figures are available, some 27,800 whole time and 1,640 part-time locally engaged civilians were

employed by the British Army of the Rhine. Of these some 21,800 whole time and 1,130 part-time were German nationals. The estimated cost of all locally engaged civilians to be employed by the British Army of the Rhine in the current financial year is £33,800,000 including £28,800,000 in respect of German nationals.

Mr. Roebuck: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that that is a very large number and, when added to the number of dependants, gives Rhine Army an exceptionally long tail? Will he institute an inquiry to see what can be done to reduce the number? Will he bear in mind the possibility of employing wives of British Servicemen in some of these jobs to reduce the costs across the exchanges?

Mr. Healey: Wives of British Servicemen are employed where that is suitable. The proportion of civilians to military in Germany is only half as high as the proportion of civilians to military in the British Army as a whole. Secondly, in Germany 80 per cent. of our forces are in one Corps and forward units. It makes sense to use highly professionally trained soldiers for military duties and leave the less military duties as far as possible to civilians.

Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in any notice that he takes of his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) that the numbers have already been cut to such an extent that in Germany soldiers are employed on menial tasks?

Mr. Healey: If he compares the menial tasks carried out by soldiers six or seven years ago with those carried out today, the hon. Member will find that there has been an enormous reduction in Germany.

Married Quarters (Segregation of Families)

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent it is his policy to segregate the families of seamen, privates and airmen from those of noncommissioned officers when allocating married quarters.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): There


is no policy of segregation but when an Army unit is allocated multiple blocks of hirings, junior and senior other ranks are customarily housed separately.

Mr. Roebuck: While recognising that different standards of accommodation may properly represent different rewards for different responsibilities, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to discourage artificial social barriers between the families of N.C.O.s and junior ranks? Will he consider what was said by Kipling:
the Colonel's Lady an' Judy O'Grady Are sisters under their skins.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be short.

Mr. Reynolds: They may well be sisters under the skin, but the whole social life develops round different buildings in the compound.

Alert (Troop Movements)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how long it is estimated to take to move the brigade from the British Army of the Rhine, stationed in the United Kingdom, all the reserves required to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to war establishment, the Third Division and other troops earmarked for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to their war stations on an alert being given.

Mr. Healey: It is not our practice to disclose details of operational contingency plans.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: While I do not, of course, expect the Minister to do that, can he say whether he is satisfied after the technique of Czechoslovakia that these troops can be moved in due course?

Mr. Healey: Yes. If I may comment on the Question, as already stated Six Brigade can carry out its move in days. The time it took to deploy all the forces to which the hon. Member has referred would depend on whether they were concurrent or consecutive, and how long it took the division to move to war stations would depend on where it was. This is essentially a division which can be used by SACEUR where the commander wishes in the light of circumstances at the time.

Mr. Rippon: Apart from the Brigade and the Third Division and problems of moving them and difficulties of increasing tension in certain circumstances, how many of the 60,000 reserves needed to bring B.A.O.R. up to wartime establishment would be immediately available?

Mr. Healey: We would expect them to be immediately available to move from stations in England. The time it took them to get to their units would compare quite favourably with the time it took Germans to get to their stations, and our reserves are better trained than the German ones.

Mr. Paget: Has my right hon. Friend considered—I am sure he has—the slight awkwardness which results from the fact that the Russians could get to these deployment positions a lot faster?

Mr. Healey: I recall that before the Czech crisis the Russians took a very long time to move their reserves to their units in Eastern Europe. The importance of having as many people as possible on the ground all the time is one of the many answers to the extraordinary argument in The Times in recent days.

Phantom Aircraft (Radar)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why United States rather than British radar sets are being installed in Great Britain's Phantom aircraft.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): No suitable British radar system would have been available in time. We therefore chose a system which had been developed for the U.S. Navy Phantom.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Minister of Defence ensure that any future avionics, if not designed in this country, can at least be built here and supplied to our forces?

Mr. Morris: Yes. These are matters that we take a great deal of account of. A great deal of British equipment is in the Phantom. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has announced, Ferranti has been given a contract for the long-term support of the radar equipment installed in British Phantoms.

Helicopters (French Guided Missile)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances he decided to purchase the French SS11 anti-tank guided missile for the purpose of arming British helicopters.

Mr. John Morris: The SS11 is being bought because it is the only proved system now available to meet an urgent operational requirement in B.A.O.R. The question of weapon systems for the next generation of helicopters will be considered in the light of all the operational and financial factors, and the capabilities of Swingfire will be taken into account.

Mr. Hastings: When will this Government accept that when it comes to ordering defence equipment we do not owe France or any other country a living, particularly when, as in this case, there exists a perfectly good British alternative with a markedly better guidance system? When it comes to placing follow-up orders, will the Government ensure that Swingfire gets them?

Mr. Morris: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this issue. The plain fact of the matter is that the British alternative is not now available. We have an urgent operational requirement. The hon. Gentleman, who has criticised the SS11, should know that it it is now used by the Navy; it is used by Navy helicopters. It is not obsolescent; Swingfire in an airborne rôle has not yet been developed or tested.

Young Servicemen (Morale and Conditions)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the National Council for Civil Liberties about morale and conditions in the Services; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Reynolds: The National Council for Civil Liberties has asked to be associated with a recent request from the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group to discuss with me the question of young Servicemen. I have advised the Group that I am prepared to examine and subsequently discuss with it detailed complaints; and I have kept the National Council for Civil Liberties informed.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are the Government aware of a report and connected activities which tend to tamper with the morale and loyalty of Her Majesty's Forces? What advice has been taken from the Law Officers of the Crown?

Mr. Reynolds: I am aware of quite a number of things, but on the information that the hon. Gentleman has given the House now I would not like to say it has anything to do with what he is talking about. If he cares to let me have details, I will certainly look at them.

Mr. Driberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not tampering with the morale and loyalty of the forces to recognise that 15-year-olds who sign on for 12 years without really knowing what they are doing should be released, or given the option of release, at 18 in accordance with the Report of the Latey Committee?

Mr. Reynolds: This matter, as my hon. Friend well knows, has been and is still being examined by the Government. Despite all the publicity there has been, I am still surprised at the very small number of such cases in which there is hardship which has been so far forwarded to me in the last two years.

Expenditure (Gross National Product)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish the latest figure of the percentage of the gross national product represented by this year's Defence Estimates.

Mr. Healey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 1st May, which was, I think, about 5¾ per cent.—[Vol. 782, c. 266–7.]

Mr. Goodhew: Does not this figure omit entirely the American aircraft bought on the never-never to be paid for later under a Conservative Government? Does it not also omit the back-dated increase of pay for the forces which will no doubt come in due course? How can the right hon. Gentleman think that this is an honest figure to give to the House and the country?

Mr. Healey: If the hon. Gentleman read HANSARD regularly, he would find


that the other figures were also given in the Answer made to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not a fact that, if we cut our proportion to that for the rest of Western Europe—that is, 4 per cent.—this would mean £650 million a year to be spent on other and better things?

Mr. Healey: The European average is 5 per cent. We intend to get down to that in three or four years' time.

Mr. Rippon: Does the Secretary of State agree from what he has just said that 5¾ per cent. is not the honest figure and that the honest figure is that which was given, as he says, in the Answer he has mentioned—a figure which he has not quoted?

Mr. Healey: I quote it now. It is about 6 per cent. That was the figure given in the earlier Answer. However, this is not money spent by the Government or raised by the taxpayer. I will deal in more detail with this point when I reply to Question No. 12.

Royal Air Force Rôle (Buccaneers)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in the rôle of the Royal Air Force have been made to enable it to use Buccaneers as the backbone of its strike reconnaissance capability between now and the late 1970s.

Mr. John Morris: Our defence effort will in future be mainly concentrated in Europe and the Buccaneer will provide a satisfactory overland strike/reconnaissance aircraft in the European theatre until the middle seventies. Following the phasing out of the carriers, the Royal Air Force will take over from the Royal Navy responsibility for operating Buccaneers in the maritime strike rôle.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that only last year the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force made it clear that the V-bombers required supplementing by a Spearhead type aircraft, which was to be the F111, and that the cancellation of the F111 left a serious gap? The Under-Secretary said, further, that the Buccaneer Mark II was not in the same class as the F111. How can the hon. Gentleman pretend

that the R.A.F. can carry out the same rôle now?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is aware that although the F111 would have remained operationally viable beyond the middle 1970s, and although the Buccaneer has some shortcomings as compared with the F111 range, they are of less importance now that the emphasis of our defence effort is concentrated in Europe.

Service Pay

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to receive the report on Service pay from the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Reynolds: I hope that it will be possible for the Board's report to be published, concurrently with an announcement to the House of the Government's views, about the middle of next month.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: As the Government first referred this to the National Board for Prices and Incomes in November, 1967, and as after the interim settlement in May, 1968, they have therefore had a year, can we be assured that when this settlement comes it will not be yet another interim settlement but will be a final one which will put the Services on a pay and salary scale commensurate with their equivalents in industry?

Mr. Reynolds: I do not know as yet what will be the contents of the National Board's report. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, in May of last year the Government asked the National Board to give us its final report by the end of May of this year. I am confident that the National Board will meet that target. Thus, the report will come during the Parliamentary Recess. I am merely asking for about two and a half weeks for the Government to consider the report, to take a decision, and to make a statement to the House.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: If the principle is comparability with the civilian rates and the civilian rates have ipso facto already been sent to the Prices and Incomes Board, what is the point of referring Service pay for the second time?

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is anticipating what might be in the report. I do not know in any detail what the National Board is likely to report. I suggest that we wait until we get the report and the Government's views on it. Then I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen will wish to discuss the matter in detail.

Mr. Ramsden: Is it not extremely unsatisfactory when Ministers continue to dissociate themselves from responsibility for the eventual level of Service pay and push the question on to the National Board, when everybody knows that it is a determining factor in the level of recruitment, which at present is very unsatisfactory?

Mr. Reynolds: I made it perfectly clear in the recent defence debates that the Government must accept responsibility for the level of Service pay and any effect that it has or does not have on recruiting. We have asked the National Board for advice. We expect to receive that advice by the end of this month. It will take some time—about two and a half weeks—for us to consider the advice, take a decision, and then report the matter to the House.

Recruitment

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the final other rank recruiting deficits in the last financial year for each of the three services.

Mr. Reynolds: 2,300 for the Royal Navy; 10,700 for the Army; 2,000 for the Royal Air Force.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a shortfall of 15,000 in the very modest target which was set by the Government is a devastating revelation in view of the dangerous situation which exists all over the world, a determining factor in the level of recruitment, which at present is very unsatisfactory?

Mr. Reynolds: I would not say that it was devastating or desperately serious for this sort of thing to happen in one year. It is far from satisfactory. We hope to get it right. I announced in the defence debate some of the measures we are taking: and, with the report which we

expect shortly to receive from the National Board, we hope to get matters right later on this year.

Mr. Murray: To put these figures into perspective, will my right hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the annual shortfall since 1951?

Mr. Reynolds: If a Question were to be tabled, I have no doubt that the information could be provided.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for manning the forces in the event of sufficient volunteers for all Regular forces not being forthcoming.

Mr. Reynolds: As I have told the House before, we are not planning for the hypothetical situation of a breakdown in the voluntary system. It is better to emphasise the fact that the Services have a clear and worth-while future, and that young men of the right quality are assured of an absorbing and rewarding career.

Mr. Goodhart: Since recruitment is still deplorably low—with the Army 15,000 men short of its established strength—has the right hon. Gentleman asked the staff to prepare contingency plans for the introduction of selective service?

Mr. Reynolds: I answered that in my main answer. No, Sir.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Do the Government plan any further economies in defence spending in this matter? If so, how can they say that the reorientation of defence policy is completed?

Mr. Reynolds: The economies in our plans have all been announced to the House in the last 18 months or so.

Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the future of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, in light of the Second Report from the Committee on Public Petitions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): No, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: Did not the Report, by accepting more than I million valid


signatures, demolish the critics of the petition? Does it not bring our system of Parliamentary democracy into disrepute if the Government are not prepared to find a place for the Argylls in their future planning, in view of this massive demonstration of public feeling?

Mr. Boyden: The hon. Gentleman asked me what light the Committee on Public Petitions had shed on the petition. The Committee said that there were I million signatures. I have never disputed that.

Mr. Manuel: Could my hon. Friend state, in the light of the scrutiny which was made, how many inaccuracies and actual forgeries were discovered?

Mr. Boyden: Fortunately, that is not a matter for me.

United States Aircraft (Purchases)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated increase in the total sum of the defence budget for 1969–70 if cash was paid by Great Britain on delivery for aircraft purchased for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy from the United States of America and on the percentage of the gross national product devoted to the defence budget.

Mr. Healey: £73½; million and under 0·2 per cent.

Mr. Marten: On a study of the previous Written Answers, should not the answer be much nearer £200 million, and, if that be so, is not the statement that defence expenditure has been reduced rather misleading?

Mr. Healey: With respect, it is not. The answer is £73½ million, and under 0·2 per cent.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what sums were spent on United States aircraft in 1968–69 and what sums he intends to spend in 1969–70 and in what ways he is contributing to imports substitution.

Mr. John Morris: In 1968–69, £48 million, and an estimated £50 million in 1969–70. These amounts represent the repayment of sums drawn under the

American aircraft credit, together with payment of interest, cash payment for certain spares not covered by the credit agreement, and the payments arising from the cancelled contract for the F111. They do not include the cost of British-produced items.
On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 13th November last.—[Vol. 773, c. 378–9.]

Sir G. Nabarro: But has not the economic position worsened since 13th November last, and is it not the duty of the Minister of Defence to try to make a contribution, a real financial and economic contribution, to the policies of his own Government in matters of import substitution?

Mr. Morris: One is always conscious of the need for import substitution. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting—whether we should cancel delivery of the Hercules or the Phantom. The Hercules has already been completed, and the Phantom order is well on its way to completion.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: What is the sum now outstanding for the remaining purchase of United States military aircraft? Have any British Government ever spent so much foreign exchange on not having weapons with which to equip their forces?

Mr. Morris: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester has a Question down today for Written Answer about the sum outstanding. I am sure that he will not object if I give part of the Answer now in reply to the hon. Gentleman. The sum still outstanding on amounts borrowed up to 30th April, 1969, is £237 million.

Royal Naval Dockyards (Reorganisation)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of Whitley Committees in the planned reorganisation of Royal Naval Dockyards.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): This question is now under review, and I shall consider changes as the reorganisation develops.

Mr. Judd: Will my hon. Friend agree that in the modernisation of the yards communication and consultation are crucial, and that if this is to be successful the Whitley Committees will in future have to be chaired by the general managers, with their increased responsibilities?

Dr. Owen: To stimulate productivity, it is our intention that general managers will be given greater powers in their yards; they will, however, exercise these powers within their own departments, and their position in relation to the Whitley Committees will, as I have already said, be considered in this context.

Mr. Boston: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations are now taking place following his recent announcement about reorganising Her Majesty's Dockyards.

Dr. David Owen: Consultations are now taking place between the Navy Department and the Departments of Economic Affairs and Employment and Productivity.
Discussions have also been initiated with the dockyard Whitley representatives on both the national and local levels. In addition we have held a symposium about the details of the decisions concerning the dockyards. This symposium was attended by members of the Whitley Councils and Committees and by a number of district union officials.

Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend accept that the humanity as well as efficiency with which this reorganisation is being carried through is very commendable? What progress is being made in the talks with the trade unions, particularly on the question of retraining men made redundant? When will the outcome of the talks be revealed?

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have laid great emphasis on the need to get adequate retraining facilities in agreement with the trade unions in the discussions which have arisen over the whole range of the current dockyard review, and the progress made is satisfactory.

Dame Joan Vickers: What is the expected rundown in the labour force during the coming year?

Dr. Owen: If the hon. Lady will put down a Question on that, I will endeavour to answer it.

Portsmouth Dockyard (Accident Rate)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the accident rate in Portsmouth dockyard during the past year.

Dr. David Owen: In 1968, there were 458 accidents to industrial staff in Portsmouth dockyard. The great majority of the consequential injuries were of a minor nature. Nevertheless, we are not relaxing our efforts to improve safety, and, as my hon. Friend knows, a Yard Safety Committee has recently been established.

Mr. Judd: Is this not a deteriorating record of work safety, and, at a time of modernisation in the yards, is it not most unsatisfactory? Will it receive the closest possible attention?

Dr. Owen: I am not complacent about any accidents. As I have said, we are looking at the matter closely. We have instilled into the dockyard industrial labour force a safety consciousness of a pretty high level, and our record compares very favourably with that of outside industry.

Working Dogs

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many working dogs are employed by Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom; and what saving in the cost of feeding alone will result from the decision to feed them on canned meat.

Mr. Reynolds: Including those being trained, 758.
The main object of the change was to provide a better and consistent diet. Economy was not the primary aim, though there should be modest economies as canned meat is easier to store, handle and prepare.

Mr. Burden: Was the assessment of cost carried out before the recent increase due to 22½ per cent. purchase tax, and is it the Government's policy to feed working dogs on pet food?

Mr. Reynolds: Tenders will go out for the type of food which we require for these dogs. As the Ministry of Defence does not normally pay purchase tax on supplies for defence purposes, it makes no difference when the costing was done.

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the working dogs employed by Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom are attached to establishments where there are catering units.

Mr. Reynolds: Many of the working dogs employed by Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom are at establishments where there are catering facilities. It is not possible to be more precise without detailed inquiry.

Mr. Burden: As their normal food, or the food upon which they have been fed in the past, will be available, was advice from veterinary inspectors or veterinary surgeons taken into consideration in the switch to pet food or tinned meat rather than the diet the dogs have been used to in the past?

Mr. Reynolds: The food which they have normally been having will no longer be available because it will not be purchased in future; it was fresh meat and other materials. A scale has been worked out for the amount of meat and other materials which dogs of different weights require. We are now applying that. There will be no wastage of food in establishments with catering facilities because any waste is sold as pig swill. If the hon. Gentleman wants the dogs to have that, he ought to look at what it does to the pigs.

Army Detention Barracks

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if his review of the conditions and opportunities of work in Army detention barracks is now complete; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyden: No special review of Army detention barracks has taken place, but the probation service has been assisting detainees returning to civilian life, both during their detention and afterwards.

Naval Detention Quarters

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if his review of the conditions and opportunities of work in Naval detention quarters is now complete; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. David Owen: We have decided that the number of hours spent by detainees in their rooms will be reduced. All detainees will have discussion periods as well as lecture periods. Detainees will in future eat and talk together, and the standard of food has already been improved. More visitors will be permitted. The effect of these changes, which will be introduced over the next few months adds up to a considerable modernisation of the Royal Naval detention quarters.

Mr. Driberg: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome announcement of improvements. Can he say something about the tasks performed in these detention quarters? May we take it that it is not now only the archaic task of picking oakum which is available to some of these men?

Dr. Owen: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the teasing out of short pieces of ordinary stranded rope. As I have said in the House before, what is done in this establishment is to make mats and fenders which are used by Her Majesty's ships. This work is, therefore, productive and of assistance to the Fleet. In any case, men do not remain indefinitely on this work but go on to perform other duties around the establishment, and on entering stage IV, which is after about 84 days, they go out daily to work at their trades on Her Majesty's ships in the dockyard.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the hon. Gentleman pay a tribute to the staff at naval detention quarters for all that they do to help the men who have to serve sentences there and for the results which they achieve?

Dr. Owen: I gladly do that. The Report of the Working Party which looked into the whole question of detention quarters concluded that very valuable work had been done in the past.

Concorde Aircraft

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Concorde aircraft he proposes to order for delivery in the mid-1970s to replace slower troop-carrying jet aircraft.

Mr. John Morris: None, Sir.

Sir G. Nabarro: Before the Government commit themselves to buying jumbo jets or other American troop-carrying aircraft for the 1970s, would it not be a good idea if they set about thinking that British aircraft should be employed, such as the Concorde, which is at least largely British, as an alternative to pouring out our treasure to buy foreign machines which we can build ourselves in the first place more cheaply and more efficiently than any American firm can build them?

Mr. Morris: I am not sure when the hon. Gentleman discovered this new form of indignation. The Military Aircraft (Loans) Act was discussed in 1966, and it is not recorded that the hon. Gentleman voted in any Division on it. Second, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the purpose of the Concorde. Third, as regards British transport forces in the air, our present force is now composed of new aircraft and will not need replacing for some time.

Infantry Divisions (Recruitment)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the shortage in recruitment to the infantry divisions of the British Army; and what is the difference between their peacetime and war establishments.

Mr. Boyden: On 1st April, 1969 the infantry was deficient in strength by some 2,400 soldiers. Infantry divisions do not have peace and war establishments; however the difference in this respect for each infantry battalion is about 100 soldiers. Some battalions also receive a further increment from TAVR Reservists.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this puts us in a very grave position? This is one of our teeth arms, and to be 2,000 short is a grave situation, particularly as we lack reserves. What is he doing about it?

Mr. Boyden: The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the situation. In the last few weeks, recruiting has picked up.

Mr. Ramsden: If infantry divisions do not have peace or war establishments any more, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are working on the basis of three companies or four companies for infantry battalions?

Mr. Boyden: It varies between the divisions at the moment.

Gurkha Brigade

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Regular British officers will be in the permanent cadre of the Gurkha Brigade on 1st June, 1969; and what are his plans for recruitment to the brigade.

Mr. Boyden: 163. On officer recruiting to the brigade, I have nothing to add to my letter to the hon. Member of 31st March. We shall continue to recruit sufficient Gurkha soldiers to maintain our target strengths.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that by phasing out the permanent cadre and having only temporary officers going to the Gurkha Brigade, it will lower the level of recruitment, and is it not disastrous? When we are 10,000 short in the Army and 2,000 short in the infantry brigades, surely it is madness to cut the Gurkha Brigade?

Mr. Boyden: I do not accept either of those two points. It is a reflection on the short service officers to make that remark. Several of the corps in the Gurkhas are run by seconded or short service officers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members: Wait.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order."] Order. The point of order was not raised.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Government show some Commonwealth solidarity and consider stationing some British Gurkhas with the Australians and New Zealanders in Malaysia after 1971, and will the Government do nothing to discourage the recruitment of these splendid soldiers?

Mr. Boyden: There is a great deal more Commonwealth solidarity now than there was in the days when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office.

Mr. Rippon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we regard his answer as very unsatisfactory and that a Conservative Government will seek to review the position as soon as we have the opportunity and try to put right the damage that present Government policy has done?

Mr. Driberg: Since the Gurkhas seem actually to enjoy serving in H.M. Forces—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: So do many other people.

Mr. Driberg: —and since they make very good soldiers, anyway, why confine them to the Gurkha Brigade? Why not bring some of them to the United Kingdom to replace the reluctant teenage Servicemen whom my hon. Friend will not release?

Mr. Boyden: That would raise many difficult problems, and I doubt very much whether the Gurkhas as a whole would like it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the still unsatisfactory nature of all those various replies, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence at what strength he now plans to maintain the Gurkha Brigade after 1971.

Mr. Boyden: As announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th January, 1968, the Brigade of Gurkhas is being reduced to a strength of 6,000 men by the end of 1971. Its future after that date will depend on conditions at that time.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feelings in the House and in the country as expressed a few minutes ago? Will he have particular regard to the pleas of his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and reconsider this deplorable decision to reduce the brigade?

Mr. Boyden: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates what is said to be the feeling in the House.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are great differences in our recruiting position which have developed since 16th January, 1968, which is 16 months ago, and that we are now 15,000 men short? Following the question of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), will he not undertake to open negotiations in Nepal to see whether we could not recruit an additional 6,000 Gurkhas, who are the best possible auxiliaries to the British Regular Army?

Mr. Boyden: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should read what his right hon. Friend said about this situation in 1963.

Dr. Gray: Has my hon. Friend had conversations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development on the effect of this reduction on Nepal's external balance of payments in view of the remissions which have always been sent by Gurkhas to their relatives and dependants in Nepal?

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration has been to Nepal three times and this matter has been very much under consideration in his discussions with the Government there.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory and frivolous nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Aircraft Carriers

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the rôle to be played by aircraft carriers in the early 1970s.

Mr. Boston: asked the Secretary of Slate for Defence what further consideration he now proposes to give to the rôle of the aircraft carriers after 1971.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what rôle is now proposed for H.M.S. "Ark Royal" in the seventies.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when it is intended that H.M.S. "Eagle" shall go out of active service in accordance with Her Majesty's Government's policies in regard to aircraft carriers.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider making available H.M.S. "Ark Royal" for international peace-keeping purposes when she is phased out of operational use with the Royal Navy in 1972.

Mr. Healey: The Government's plans for the aircraft carriers remain unchanged; that is to say, they will be phased out of their present fixed-wing flying task after the withdrawals from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf have been completed in December, 1971. As we have said before, no decision has yet been taken about their future after that date.

Mr. Brooks: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the fact that well over £32 million will have to be spent on the refit of the "Ark Royal", it would be the height of madness to get rid of her when she still has an operational potential, which I understand will persist into the middle 1970s?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that that is the case. When the Government decided not to continue the carrier force, it was because the running costs annually and the cost of replacing carriers as they became obsolescent were out of all proportion to the military value which could be obtained, particularly once we decided to leave our bases east of Suez.

Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there has been confusion in some Press reports about the future of the carriers? Would he clarify the position and confirm that an alternative way of dealing with this would involve greater cost with no greater benefit in terms of our defence policy?

Mr. Healey: If one decides to retire an equipment from its existing rôle, it is possible to scrap it, to sell it or to give it a new rôle. Each of those possibilities is still open for the carriers, particularly the smaller carrier "Hermes", whose overhead costs when operating are very much less than those of the larger ones like "Eagle" and "Ark Royal".

Sir F. Bennett: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what vessel or type of vessel will replace the aircraft carrier which has been carrying out anti-evasion of Rhodesian sanctions patrols off Mozambique, once the carriers have been withdrawn?

Mr. Healey: The functions which were carried out by a carrier in the Beira patrol are being carried out very satisfactorily at the moment by Shackleton aircraft.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the possibility that this ship might form part of some future peace-keeping exercise, and will he explore with the Committee of 33 how it might be done?

Mr. Healey: As my hon. Friend knows, we are very anxious to assist the United Nations in any practicable way in its peace-keeping operations. However, this possibility has never been raised with us, and I would doubt whether it made sense to use a ship of this size and complexity in the rôle to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we on this side of the House share the anxieties expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks), and will he confirm that the Super Harriers will be available for operations from these aircraft carriers and perhaps from other ships after 1971?

Mr. Healey: When the Pegasus engine is up-rated, which is what I assume the right hon. and learned Gentleman means by Super Harriers, the Harrier will be available for any purpose which is considered suitable at the time. One such purpose might be operating from the decks of ships. However, I doubt whether it would operate from the decks of larger ships, because the advantages of the short take-off would be lost by using a very long runway.

Western European Defence

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has yet discussed the effects on West European defence of the United States' decision to proceed with a thin anti-ballistic missile system and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: No formal discussions have been held on the decision announced by President Nixon on 14th March, but as with the many other subjects of common interest in N.A.T.O., some informal discussion has taken place. I am unable however to disclose details.

Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that for the Americans to invest £3½ billion in a system designed to protect the Minuteman missile sites is bound to increase tension, is bound to accelerate the arms race, and may well involve a strategic reappraisal of the whole cold war situation, which would be very damaging to us? Is he aware that in The Times this morning there is a report that apparently the President of the United States, in certain circumstances involving this so-called safeguard missile system, might delegate his authority to order the firing of these weapons?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend must recognise that the Soviet Government are proceeding with the deployment of their anti-ballistic missile system. I know that the American Administration are deeply anxious to negotiate with the Soviet Union a mutual agreement that neither side will deploy new strategic weapons, offensive or defensive, such as the A.B.M. system. But the rationale given by President Nixon for the deployment of this system is to ensure that America never has to fire strategic weapons systems first. I should have thought that that was an objective which commanded the support of all hon. Members.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am delighted to hear the right hon: Gentleman say that. Since our security as well as that of the United States rests upon an invulnerable second strike, what is wrong with the Americans guaranteeing that that second strike should be effective?

Mr. Healey: With respect to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend, it is not for me to decide at the moment whether the American decision is wise in the light of America's problems. Certainly the rationale presented for the system is one that commends itself to both sides of the House.

Regimental Pay Office, Edinburgh

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he took to find staff to man the Regimental Pay Office in Edinburgh, so as to avoid its closure.

Mr. Boyden: None Sir.

Mr. Stodart: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the remarkable proposition he put in a recent letter to me that there was not sufficient expertise in Scotland to man this office? Is he aware that representatives of the Civil Service have said that there is a nucleus available of 35 men with records experience and 80 with experience in pay offices? What is wrong with that?

Mr. Boyden: It is the relocation of pay and records offices that is the point of the reorganisation. If the Conservative Government had not closed the records office at Perth in 1964, there might have been enough people available but there are not now.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great irritation in the development areas at the Government's failure to choose them for the establishment of these offices? So far, only one development area has been chosen for such an office. This is at Exeter, where the unemployment rate is half that of the North-East of England, where we have excellent computer training services.

Mr. Boyden: There are many other factors to take into account than regional policy. In relation to broad regional policy, in the saving of 900 jobs through the reorganisation, 800 will come from London and the South-East, which will be a substantial contribution to regional policy in general.

Naval and Air Bases, Mediterranean

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the


naval and air bases now used by British forces in the Mediterranean; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: The bases mainly used are in Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus. I refer the hon. Member to recent statements on the Defence Estimates for fuller information.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman list those former British bases and facilities, both naval and air, used by the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean area? Would it not include Alexandria, Port Said, Luxor, Salum, Mersa Matruh, Aswan, Cairo West and Habbannya, for a start? Has not our withdrawal from that area benefited no one and nothing so much as Russian imperial ambitions?

Mr. Healey: As the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—whom I see back on the Opposition Front Bench for the first time—will recall, it was the Conservative Government's responsibility that the bases in Egypt and the surrounding area were abandoned by the British Government at the time. But the fact is that they have not been taken over as bases by the Soviet Union.

"Leander" Class Frigates (Radar Spares)

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he intends to take to expedite the supply of radar spares for "Leander" class frigates.

Mr. John Morris: In general, there is no difficulty about the supply of radar spares for "Leander" class frigates. A redesigned power unit is currently being installed in one of the radar sets fitted on these frigates, and adequate shore stocks of this unit are now held to meet any emergency requirements.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Not in general perhaps but in particular there is a great shortage. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that this shortage is not due to a general rundown in stocks and spares or war stocks through the economies of the Government?

Mr. Morris: I can give that assurance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There was no rundown of spares. Indeed, the reverse was the case. This concerned

the installation of a new set in place of an old set. In the particular case which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind—H.M.S. "Danae"—a replacement ordered failed on test. The position for the future is satisfactory.

Service Careers, Officers (School Visits)

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many local authorities currently decline to allow service careers officers to visit schools in their areas; whether he has written to these authorities; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Reynolds: There are currently about 16 areas in which local authorities decline to allow careers officers to visit schools. The Services recruiting organisations continually take all possible measures to achieve full co-operation.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman not think again as to whether it would not be constructive to write to these authorities and urge them to allow careers officers to pay such visits? May I point out, without carping, that he may find these authorities more liable to help now that so many more of them are in the hands of the Conservatives?

Mr. Reynolds: We are constantly in touch with the local authorities on this. The list of authorities is continually changing. It does not consist of the same authorities all the time. As one would expect with any list of local authorities at present, the majority of them are Conservative.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one school has become closely associated with a certain vessel in the Royal Navy? Will he encourage this kind of association between schools not only with vessels of the Royal Navy but also with R.A.F. units and regiments in the Army?

Mr. Reynolds: We have to consider the cost, both in particular and in general, but I am certainly prepared to encourage this kind of association. But policy in the schools not only towards Service visits but also towards visits by industry is a matter for the local education authorities and the head teachers concerned.

Home Defence

Mr. Ramsden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for defending vulnerable points in the United Kingdom during a period of severe tension in Europe;
(2) what plans exist for organising home defence in the United Kingdom should conventional war break out in Europe.

Mr. Healey: It would not be in the public interest to give details of such plans.

Mr. Ramsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that nothing that has been said, certainly today or in the recent defence debates, has sufficed to allay the considerable public anxiety which exists about the apparent inadequacy or absence of plans for safeguarding the home base in the event of trouble developing abroad? Will he take steps to allay that anxiety?

Mr. Healey: I think that the right hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the degree of public anxiety. Anxiety has not been expressed to me in any form by any member of the public.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of defending a vulnerable home base would be to bring home B.A.O.R. and save £220 million at the same time?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I take the opposite view, as I explained in the last defence debate, and it is a view which at least commanded the support of the Front Bench opposite. A situation in which there might be a threat to the home base is more likely to arise in Europe and we can best meet that by concentrating troops on the Continent.

Sir A. V. Harvey: If a foreign Power flew a civil aircraft loaded with commandos into London Airport, how would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the situation?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to answer that supplementary question.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to review the provision made for

home defence following the recent acts of sabotage in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Healey: None. Our plans for home defence relate to general war.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that an internal sabotage campaign would not coincide with a grave emergency abroad? Does not the lesson of Ulster underline the folly of slashing our reserve forces?

Mr. Healey: On the contrary, as I have explained in previous debates, tens of thousands of regular Servicemen will be available in Britain in case of war. The problem in Northern Ireland at the moment is being dealt with by a few hundred infantrymen partly because in Northern Ireland a large part of the police are caught up in duties which have no parallel, and would have no parallel, I hope, in this country.

Mr. Rippon: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is wrong to say that there is no public anxiety about the state of our home defences? Where are these tens of thousands of troops to come from if we are also committed to Europe? Has he seen what the Under-Secretary of State had to say recently—that all we have for home defence is the Household Brigade and storekeepers? The N.A.T.O. treaty places upon each country its own responsibility for home defence, and we are the only country in Western Europe which is making no proper provision for home defence.

Mr. Healey: We debated this in detail on the Defence Estimates and the House found against the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But as I said earlier, tens of thousands of professional Servicemen will be available in Britain in case of war, and I mean that this would be so after all those troops committed to N.A.T.O. for service outside the United Kingdom have left the United Kingdom.

Peace-Keeping Operations (Training)

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what training for peacekeeping activities is undertaken by Her Majesty's forces.

Mr. Healey: Peace-keeping activities call for high standards of discipline, basic training and morale. These qualities are


developed in our military schools, staff courses and colleges for all our forces whether serving on peace-keeping or other tasks.
We also take account of the experience already gained in United Nations' and other peace-keeping operations.

Mr. Luard: Would not the Secretary of State agree that the previous belief that the permanent members of the Security Council were not likely to be involved in peace-keeping operations can no longer be held in view of British participation in Cyprus and the proposals for contributions by the permanent members in the Middle East? In view of the extensive preparation and training carried out in some other countries, notably Scandinavian countries, for this purpose, would he not agree that it would be valuable if we undertook special training for these purposes and co-operated with other Governments to that end?

Mr. Healey: British forces are extraordinarily well trained for peace-keeping duties, as is proved by the way in which they compare with the contributions by other countries to peace-keeping forces. I do not think that anyone who has visited Cyprus will dispute that. There was a Question about training with other countries which was put a month ago when I explained some of the problems and difficulties.

West Germany (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on his discussions with the West German Government regarding the use of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Healey: The Anglo-German study designed to establish guidelines for the tactical use of nuclear weapons by N.A.T.O. will be considered at the Ministerial meeting of the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Planning Group at the end of this month.

Mr. Allaun: While my right hon. Friend may believe that this collaboration gives N.A.T.O. greater control over future German nuclear activity, is it not possible that Bonn enthusiastically supports it for exactly the opposite reason?

Mr. Healey: Everything is possible, but I am convinced that the activities of the Nuclear Planning Group have done

more to deal with the serious problems of nuclear control within the Alliance than anything that has previously happened. I think that the work which we are now doing is making a major political as well as military contribution to the solidarity of N.A.T.O. and peace in the West.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if discussions with the West German Government on the subject of the possibility of any control, or partial control, by the West German Government over nuclear weapons in Europe should occur, they will not be regarded as confidential and that the House will be fully informed?

Mr. Healey: There is no question of giving control of nuclear weapons to anybody who does not possess nuclear weapons now. The purpose of the study which we are carrying out in the Nuclear Planning Group is to ensure that all members of the Alliance share a common doctrine on how these weapons should be used if their use ever became necessary.

Beira Patrol (H.M.S. "Eagle")

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the aircraft carrier H.M.S. "Eagle" will be returning to the Beira sanctions' patrol; and during her absence what vessel or vessels are carrying out her duties.

Mr. Healey: I have no plans to make further use of aircraft carriers on the Beira Patrol. The patrol will continue to be carried out by destroyers or frigates and Shackleton aircraft of the Royal Air Force.

Sir F. Bennett: Where do the Shackle-ton aircraft operate from and at what cost, in terms of both cash and foreign exchange? Second, would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the efficiency of the present system, as petrol in Salisbury under sanctions costs rather less than petrol in England without sanctions but under his Government?

Mr. Healey: As is well known, the aircraft operate from Madagascar and have done so since the beginning of the patrol. The patrol has been totally effective for its purpose, which was to prevent any oil from reaching Rhodesia through Beira.

Mr. Paget: But now that so much oil is reaching Rhodesia from other sources that the Rhodesians can do without rationing, why should we go to the expense of maintaining this nonsense?

Mr. Healey: The overwhelming majority of my hon. Friends and at any rate members of the Liberal Opposition believe that support for a United Nations resolution of this nature is essential to the good name of this country in the world.

Mr. Hastings: Will the Secretary of State now answer my hon. Friend's question and tell us what the actual cost of the nonsense is?

Mr. Healey: I could not do so without notice, but the House will remember that I gave the figures of the cost in answer to a Question some months ago. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give the figures again, perhaps he will put down a Question. It raises a subject different from that of the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Judd: Will my right hon. Friend note that there are many hon. Members who resent the fact that this excellent operation, although we should like to see it extended, is described by hon. Members opposite as nonsense?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.

Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what study he proposes to make of the results of the Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment; and what assistance is being given by the Meteorological Office to the project with a view to gaining an understanding of the global atmosphere as a basis for predicting the weather two weeks in advance.

Mr. Reynolds: The Meteorological Office is not taking part in this largely American experiment. The results, and those of similar experiments in which the Office will participate, will contribute to our research into the general circulation of the atmosphere.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Americans are putting a tremendous effort into this work and have come to the conclusion that the

Windward Islands and Barbados may be the centre of the atmospheric circulation of the Northern Hemisphere? Would it not be as well if the Met. Office took part in this experiment, or helped?

Mr. Reynolds: We shall be doing similar work in other parts of the North Atlantic with other European countries in the next two years or so. We shall receive full reports of the American experiment in the Barbados area, as other countries will receive reports of our work. We shall learn much more from those reports than we should from sending one man as an observer with a large number of American ships spread over a large area of sea.

B.A.O.R. (Cold-Weather Clothing)

Dames Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the planning of the improvement of the cold-weather clothing to be issued to the troops in the British Army of the Rhine in place of the parka jacket; and when this will be available.

Mr. Morris: It is not intended to replace the parka jacket, which will be issued as necessary for use in very cold conditions. Trials will, however, begin this year of a quilted waistcoat type garment, which will give added warmth in conditions not cold enough for use of the parka jacket.

Dame Joan Vickers: What does the hon. Gentleman mean when he says that trials will begin this year? When will the equipment be ready? Is not this a matter of urgency in view of the expedition to Norway last year and the difficulties suffered by our troops there?

Mr. Morris: The issue of Norway is a completely different question. For Arctic warfare we have been using clothing designed in Canada. The whole range of combat clothing for temperate areas, including for the B.A.O.R., has been under review and prototypes of improved garments have been introduced and limited troop trials will begin in July, 1969. Because the trials have not yet begun, it is not possible to say when any clothing approved will come into service.

Mr. Ramsden: How can the hon. Gentleman say that my hon. Friend's Question is irrelevant? Do not our forces have a new rôle on the flanks of N.A.T.O., in Arctic regions? Is it not a


matter of some urgency that they should get the proper equipment? Can we have, if not today at any rate soon, a rather more comprehensive and relevant statement?

Mr. Morris: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to read the hon. Lady's Question. I answered that Question. She also raised the issue of Arctic clothing and that is an entirely different matter.

Blowpipe Missile

Mr. McMaster: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the trials and evaluation of the Blowpipe missile; and if he will place a production order for it as equipment for the British Army.

Mr. John Morris: Development of Blowpipe is being undertaken by Short Brothers and Harland under arrangements agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. It is proceeding satisfactorily but is at too early a stage for any firm production order. Plans are being made to ensure rapid production to meet the Service requirement provided the development stage is satisfactorily concluded.

Mr. McMaster: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that a production order for the British Army of this ideal weapon would greatly assist overseas sales? Is he aware that it is a weapon of great export potential?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member is perfectly right, and I hope that he will take some comfort from the last part of my original Answer. I cannot go any further at this stage.

TRANSFER OF QUESTIONS

Sir F. Bennett: On a point of order. May I now raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order of which I have given you prior notice, and which in view of Minister's remarks in answer to my last question, suggesting that if I had put a Question down to him he would have answered it, I was very tempted to raise during Question Time, but instead bowed to your original advice that this was inappropriate?
On 1st May I put down a Question on the very point which he then mentioned,

the cost of the British patrol in Madagascar. I put the Question to the Treasury on the first day which would ensure an Answer on 20th May. I put it in to the Treasury because the best advice I could obtain was that it would answer this Question and not the Ministry of Defence. It was not until Tuesday morning that I received notification that the Treasury was to transfer this Question to the Ministry of Defence, because it thought that it would be appropriate for that Minister to answer.
I thereupon went to the Table Office which, quite procedurally correctly, advised me that, had I received notification of transfer by Monday, before the House sat, I could have put the question down to the Minister of Defence for a verbal reply on Wednesday 7th May. The Table Office said that as I did not receive the notification of transfer until Tuesday afternoon, it was then too late for me to put such a Question to the Minister for today. I was told that my only remedy lay in leaving it for the Defence Minister to answer as a Written Question on 20th May or for me to leave it indefinitely until Questions on Defence came to the top of the list again.
I know that you have no control over whether a Minister transfers Questions, Mr. Speaker, but I think that on behalf of every Member in the House some advice should be given by the Chair as to the celerity with which Ministerial Departments give notification of their intention to transfer Questions. Otherwise, we are put in the position when a Minister who does not want to answer a difficult Question—and I must admit I had some suspicions on this today—takes steps to ensure that the Question is not answered verbally, by the manoeuvre to which I have referred.

Mr. Speaker: I am never concerned with the motives of Ministers, which I am sure are the purest.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) for having given me notice that he intended to raise this matter. The general point he makes, and it is an important one, was considered by the Procedure Committee in Session 1966/67. In paragraph 13 of its Second Report is said:
It has been submitted to Your Committee that a Member's opportunity to ask a question for an oral answer is seriously prejudiced if


there is delay in informing him that his question is to be transferred from one Minister to another. … It has been consistently emphasised by the Chair that the transferance of questions is the responsibility of Ministers. But Your Committee recommend that Ministers should as a general rule, not later than two sitting days after the appearance of a question on the Notice Paper, inform the Member who has given notice of it of the fact that it is to be transferred, and to which Minister.
It does not seem on this occasion that the Department disregarded the Committee's recommendation, since notice of the Question was published on 2nd May, which was a Friday, and notice of the transfer was given on 5th May, which, being a Monday, was within the specified two sitting days.
All the same, this is a clear illusstration of the inconvenience which can arise if there is any delay at all in the transfer of Questions and I am sure that all Departments will use their best endeavours to avoid this. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir F. Bennett: I accept that notice was given, but one cannot know that unless one receives notification and I did not receive notification by post until 6th May, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that notice was given on Monday, but did not reach the hon. Gentleman until Tuesday.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. I am sure that the whole House will thank you for the Ruling you have given and the suggestion made to Departments. It is within the knowledge of most hon. Members that this sort of thing has been happening for some years now. Could the Department concerned not follow the admirable example set by the Table Office which, often within minutes and certainly within hours, sends a postcard to an hon. Member informing him that it wishes to discuss a Question, or that something is not in order?
Surely the Departments could send a printed card stating that they were transferring a Question? It could be sent within a matter of hours. If the Table Office can do it, the Departments can.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Departments will note the advice of the hon. Gentleman. May I say that the Table Office appreciates the tributes which the hon. Gentleman has paid to it.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. When the Committee recommends that the communication should be made with a Member within 48 hours, or two sitting days, surely that means communication to the Member, not the mere posting of a letter? It should be up to the Department, by telephone or otherwise, to find out where the Member is, and let him know. Could that be made clear?

Mr. Speaker: The House will agree that the sooner notice is given the better. If it is within the two days, even so much the better for the convenience of the hon. Member who may be disadvantaged if he does not know that his Question has been transferred.

RAIL ACCIDENT, MORPETH

Mr. Will Owen: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the rail accident at Morpeth earlier today.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): Yes, Sir. I very much regret to inform the House that at 01.31 this morning the 19.40 sleeping car train from King's Cross to Aberdeen became derailed at Morpeth, Northumberland. Reported casualties are seven killed and 94 injured, but these figures have not yet been finally confirmed.
I know that the House will join with me in expressing sincere sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives and with the injured.
The emergency services were called for at once and the first ambulance arrived on the scene within nine minutes of the accident, a most creditable performance.
I am not able at this stage to inform the House of the cause of this tragic accident, but my Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways is at the site now and a public inquiry will be held as soon as possible.

Mr. Owen: I am sure that the House will join with me in my right hon. Friend's expression of sympathy to the relatives of those who have lost their lives or who have been injured in this regrettable accident.
It is at this moment too early to comment upon the cause of the accident, but I hope that the inquiry will help


to remove some of the rumours circulating this morning.
I am sure that the House would further like to convey its admiration to the citizens of Morpeth and the railway workers, and to the public services in the area who have responded so magnificently in this emergency.

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The inquiry will be in public and it will be a full inquiry.
I would certainly support the views which my hon. Friend has expressed on the remarkable speed and efficiency of the local services, including the police and ambulance services.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware—as, of course, he must be—that I have 24 years' experience of this excellent railway line? Will he say whether this terrible disaster was due to a defect in the railway line or in the train?
Secondly, can he give the names of the Aberdeen passengers who were killed and injured and say what provision is being made for them? I offer my sympathy to all who have suffered by the tragedy.

Mr. Marsh: With the greatest respect, I ask the House not to pursue that line of inquiry. This is a very serious accident. There will be an inquiry into its causes. At the moment, I propose to say nothing beyond that.

Mr. Dewar: I should like to associate myself and, I am sure, everyone in the City of Aberdeen with the expression of sympathy which my right hon. Friend the Minister has made to the families and friends of those who have been so tragically involved in this appalling accident.
My right hon. Friend will, no doubt, be aware that there is quite a deal of widespread concern not only about the specific accident, but about what appears, at least, to have been an increase in the number of derailments recently. Can he give an assurance that the public inquiry will be wide enough in scope to look not only at the specific causes of the accident, but at the general situation in this field as it is at the moment?

Mr. Marsh: The public inquiry will, of course, be able to take into account

any factors which it regards as relevant. I stress that, at the moment, no one is in a position to say what caused the accident. In view of its level of gravity, I think that the House would do better to leave the question alone.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will the Minister accept from all of us on this side of the House our association with his expression of sympathy with relatives of those who have been bereaved and for the injured? Will he fully appreciate that reports reaching us from the North Country during the course of the day have expressed the greatest admiration for the fire and ambulance services and the hospitals in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Ashington, whose performance in this emergency has been highly commendable?

Mr. Marsh: indicated assent.

Mr. Bessell: Is the Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this bench would wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy which have already been paid and to congratulate members of the public services who assisted so admirably and so quickly?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, during the inquiry, special consideration will be given to the question of increased speed of express trains and whether this is a cause, not necessarily in this case, but in general, of derailments?

Mr. Marsh: There will be a full inquiry into this matter. All possibilities will be investigated. Anything arising from that will be better dealt with after we have the report of the inquiry. In addition, there will, of course, be inquests.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (GREECE)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the question of Greece and the Council of Europe.
As the House will be aware, on 6th May the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe passed by 13 votes to two, with three abstentions, a resolution on this question.
This resolution does four things. It identifies the Committee closely with Recommendation 547, passed by the Consultative Assembly on 30th January; it brings the conclusions of that recommendation to the Greek Government's attention—as was suggested by the Consultative Assembly—in order that the Greek Government may draw the necessary conclusions; it expresses the hope that the report of the Commission of Human Rights will be made available as soon as possible; and it declares the Committee ready to take a decision at its next meeting, until which time Recommendation 547 will remain on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers and of their Deputies.
There are several points about this resolution which I should like to emphasise. First, the resolution does not mean indefinite postponement, still less evasion, of this important issue. On the contrary, its effect is to set a time limit for the Greek Government to convince European Opinion that the evolutionary process towards democracy, which, in their view, they have begun, has either been completed or is within striking distance of fulfilment.
The reason why Ministers expressed the hope—and no more—that the Human Rights Commission would make available its report as soon as possible is that constitutionally it would be wrong for the Committee of Ministers to do anything that might suggest that it was giving this distinguished judicial body any kind of directive.
A number of my colleagues urged that no decision should be taken on the Greek question by the Committee until this report was available. There is no doubt that the report will have an important bearing on the Committee's final decision. My own view, which I expressed in the Committee yesterday, is that it is highly desirable that Ministers should have had time to study the report before taking their decision, but that this is not essential.
Finally, the resolution speaks simply of the next meeting of the Committee, without specifying when this meeting will be held. This is deliberate. In certain circumstances, my colleagues and I would be prepared to hold an extraordinary meeting to consider the Greek question.
I believe, therefore, that the outcome of yesterday's meeting was satisfactory. Much of the credit for this is due to the Chairman, the German Foreign Minister.

Mr. Rippon: May I assure the Foreign Secretary that his statement will be generally welcomed as being wise and prudent in present circumstances? Will he accept that it will be widely agreed that it would be constitutionally wrong and unfortunate if the Committee of Ministers did anything that might appear to prejudice or prejudge the findings of the Human Rights Commission?
While recognising, as we all must, that there needs to be a re-establishment of Parliamentary institutions and the rule of law in Greece at the earliest opportunity, and that we have a right to expect the Greek Government to show quick earnestness of its intentions in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when similar difficulties arose in Turkey, patience was rewarded and in due course Parliamentary institutions and the rule of law were re-established?

Mr. Stewart: I hope that the decision will be welcomed, because it is, I think, in line with the Recommendation of the Assembly, which spoke of a specified period and left Ministers to judge what the appropriate action to be taken and the specified period were.
As for the report of the Commission, I do not think that I am in complete agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I remind him of what I have said: that while it would be highly desirable for the Committee of Ministers to be seized of the findings of the Commission before making a final decision, I could not regard this as an essential condition or a reason for unlimited postponement.
One of the reasons for the postponement yesterday—and I think that it was a valid reason—was that there was good ground for supposing that the report will be available.
As to the question of patience, this has been in my mind, too. It is a serious matter for any member-nation of the Council of Europe to have governmental institutions which are incompatible with the Statute. I agree, however, that it is reasonable to give time for the necessary changes to be made. I hope that they will be made.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the statement which he has made of Government policy is very much in line with the overwhelming view of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, and particularly what he has said about segregation of the issues before the Commission and the issue of qualification to remain a member of the Council of Europe?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, on behalf of the British Government, that if the Commission reports in good time before December the Government will urge that an immediate meeting of Ministers be held to deal with this subject?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the first part of his question. We sought to carry out what, I thought, was both the letter and the spirit of the Assembly's Recommendation, It is perfectly clear that the next meeting could not in any circumstances be later than the normal December time. If the Commission's report were available, and it were possible to hold the meeting earlier, the British Government would certainly be in favour of that being done.

Mr. Kirk: As one of those who was responsible for drawing up the resolution, may I associate myself with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and assure the Foreign Secretary that this is wholly within the framework which we were trying to achieve? There seems to be some doubt about whether the unanimity rule applies in this case. Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up that point?

Mr. Stewart: That would, in the end, need to be answered by a lawyer, but it would not be my view—for what it is worth, not being a legal view—that one could hold that the unanimity rule applied here. It would not seem to me to make sense.

Mr. John Fraser: While I take the view that Greece should have been suspended yesterday, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his European colleagues on taking a most serious and important step in the right direction and giving, as it were, a suspended sentence to the Greek junta?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the Commission's report is not an absolute precondition to a final decision. Can my right hon. Friend say that the final decision for suspension will be taken unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence of a return to democracy and not mere statements of intention by the Greek colonels?

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his supplementary question.
On the latter part, may I draw attention to what I said in my statement:
… its effect is to set a time limit for the Greek Government to convince European opinion that the evolutionary process towards democracy, which in their view they have begun, has either been completed or is within striking distance of fulfilment.

Mr. James Davidson: May I express a very warm welcome for the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the hope that it has left the Greek junta in no doubt about the revulsion felt for certain aspects of its régime and its methods, which affront the principles of both N.A.T.O. and the Council of Europe?

Mr. Stewart: No doubt the proceedings and what was said at the Council will be brought to the notice of the Greek Government. I think that they will realise what is European feeling about this whole matter.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large number of Greeks, many of whom were prominent in public life, who look to Britain and to the other democratic countries which make up the Council of Europe for continued moral support against the military dictatorship in their country?

Mr. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government, and, I think, Her Majesty's Opposition, made it very clear that we most earnestly desire to see the restoration of constitutional rule in Greece. This is our firm view, and we felt that the line which we took in the Council of Europe was the appropriate way of giving expression to it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Recommendation 547 of the Assembly, on which the Ministers based their decision, was largely drawn up from a draft prepared by Conservative members of the delegation in the


teeth of opposition from Labour members of the delegation?
Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that Members on this side of the House are gratified that the Council of Ministers should have taken the same sensible and judicious attitude to this difficult problem?

Mr. Stewart: I must leave it to hon. Members to blow their own trumpets.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the Greek Government produced any credible evidence of progress towards democracy, as they alleged, what is the nature of the time limit given to them to complete that process, and whether, in the interim, arrangements have been made for the Greek Government to supply that evidence?

Mr. Stewart: As to the time limit, I made it clear that the next meeting of the Council of Ministers could not be later than December. In the resolution passed yesterday the Ministers expressed themselves ready to take a decision at that meeting.
The House will understand that the proceedings are confidential, but I do not think there is any serious breach of confidence in my saying that the Greek representative made a statement about what had been done and what was planned to be done in his country. I assume that that would happen also at the next meeting of the Council, and the Council would then have to judge.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: While giving one blast on the trumpet for the Foreign Secretary's efforts to obtain the restoration of constitutional rule in Greece, may I ask him to bear in mind, in this very difficult situation, the very important strategic interests involved and to do nothing which would prejudice the defence of Western Europe?

Mr. Stewart: I think that we all know very well that this consideration is in the minds of all of us. But we are dealing now with the Council of Europe, which has a Statute requiring certain principles of its members, and that is what is in issue.

Mr. John Mendelson: Apart from the position in the Council of Europe, and

with reference to the first part of my right hon. Friend's statement, does the Foreign Secretary recall that under his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), and himself, those of us who have pressed the Government, either privately or publicly, to take a strong stand on our disapproval of the régime were always met with the reply that it is more wise to continue co-operation in the hope of the restoration of democracy?
Would my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Greece are being told by their Government that we approve of what is being done to them and would he in the near future make our real position clear?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that there is now any doubt about our position. I know that there can be argument about whether, when a country has institutions which are incompatible with the Statute of the Council of Europe, one should proceed immediately to suspension or expulsion or take the view that continued membership of the Council may be helpful to the country concerned. It is right to take the latter view to begin with. All that I can say is that one cannot go on taking it indefinitely if no results occur.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make an announcement about the Ruling on privilege which I was asked to make yesterday.
The House will remember that yesterday afternoon, before the debate on the Finance Bill began, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) submitted that a breach of privilege was involved in the non-delivery of copies of the Finance Bill.
It is now my duty to rule on whether the non-availability of additional copies of the Finance Bill at the Vote Office yesterday constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.
I have given this matter my anxious consideration, as I appreciate that there was serious inconvenience for some hon. Members when the Vote Office was unable to supply additional copies of the Finance Bill.
As the House knows, the procedure for printing all Bills is as follows. First, the


House orders the Bill to be printed and an order is duly entered to this effect in the Votes and Proceedings. As soon as the order is made, the Public Bill Office sends a final proof copy of the Bill to the printer and the Bill is then duly printed at St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and thereafter published. The Controller of the Stationery Office has the sole authority to print and publish our Bills and other Parliamentary papers and he is answerable, of course, to Ministers.
As I indicated to the House yesterday, the Vote Office took delivery of 1,000 copies of the Finance Bill, and this was in line with the normal requirement for an item of this kind. But owing to circumstances for which the authorities of this House have no responsibility, delivery of additional copies of the Finance Bill did not take place.
As I told the House last week on a similar occasion—HANSARD, 2nd May, c. 1768—there is no question that the Controller of the Stationery Office was in any way negligent. The inconvenience which Members have suffered was due to circumstances beyond his control.
I must, therefore, rule that a prima facie case has not been made out by the hon. Member. In saying this, I do not, of course, prejudge the subject which he raised, and my Ruling does not prevent him, or any hon. Member, from carrying the matter further by any of the other courses which are open to him. All that I am now Ruling is that I cannot give this matter priority over the Orders of the Day.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: May I say how much I appreciate the care with which you, Mr. Speaker, have looked into this matter in an endeavour to help the House in the difficulty in which it was placed.
I appreciate that there is no breach of privilege in this instance, at least not of a prima facie nature, but I wonder whether it would be possible for you to instruct one of the Officers of the House to collect the copies of the Finance Bill which physically exist at the Stationery Office? If it were possible for you to instruct one of the Officers of the House to do that, I imagine that anyone who tried to obstruct him in carrying out the instruction of the House would be in

breach of privilege. This might be a way of getting copies of the Bill which we required to discharge our Parliamentary duties.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that my staff are taking every opportunity they can to secure further copies of the Finance Bill, and that they are doing their best to see that the House is not Inconvenienced in any way by circumstances which are at present outside our control.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) was right to raise yesterday the point that he did. Mr. Speaker, if you had ruled that there was a prima facie case of breach of privilege, I should have had to move a Motion to that effect.
I know that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about not receiving publications. This is a delicate matter, and I think that all hon. Members appreciate why. I assure the House that active steps are being taken to meet every emergency. I hope that I shall not at this stage be pressed to go beyond giving the House an assurance that the authorities of the House are doing all they can to ensure that the business of the House is carried forward.
I should like to keep the House continually informed, by informal and official means. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that what I have said was the right thing to say in the circumstances. This is an extremely delicate situation. I shall keep the House informed.

Mr. Edward Heath: We are grateful to the Leader of the House for intervening and giving us an assurance that the authorities of the House are doing everything possible.
As I understood your statement on privilege, Mr. Speaker, you made it clear that the Stationery Office is responsible to Ministers. It is, therefore, the responsibility of Ministers, and, in particular, the Leader of the House, to ensure that the documents are available, if not in the printed form then in an alternative form. I am glad to note that the Leader of the House nods in agreement with that.
I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what steps the Government are taking, again for obvious reasons, but I give the right hon. Gentleman notice that if the Government put down business for the House and they do not provide the necessary documents, the House ought not to proceed with that business.

Mr. Stanley Orme: My only comment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that he cannot question my Ruling. He may raise a point of order now, or he can raise a point on the statement of the Leader of the House.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I welcome the statement which you have made, and the emphasis which you have laid on the fact that you would not be put under pressure to take action which might only exacerbate the current industrial dispute.
I hope that every hon. Member, however he feels about this issue, will recognise that it is an industrial dispute and that it can be settled only through the normal industrial negotiations—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that any form of pressure as suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite will have the exact opposite effect.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Speaker, may we be told, either by you or by the Leader of the House, whichever is appropriate, about something which has not yet been said in this matter? What is the nature of the difficulty which has prevented the delivery of these papers? Everybody keeps referring to this as a delicate matter, and one which must not be spoken of. It seems odd that we should not be told what the difficulty is.

Mr. Speaker: I mentioned yesterday that there was an industrial dispute at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I refused to comment on it yesterday. I refuse to comment on it today. A long time ago I decided to refuse to comment on anything in this country about which there were differences of opinion.

Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you feel unable to comment, may I make it plain that we

on this side of the House absolutely repudiate the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and that the duly elected British Parliament is not going to allow itself to be impeded in its work by an industrial dispute?

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the whole House, may I say that everybody in the House would echo the words of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition that we regard the work of the British Parliamen0t as very important indeed, and that we regard interfering with it as something very serious indeed.

RHODESIA

Mr. David Winnick: On a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for a statement to be made later today, either by the Leader of the House or by the Foreign Secretary, on whether any new Government action is to be taken on Rhodesia, in view of the great interest which the House has in the Rhodesian problem?

Mr. Speaker: That is most fascinating, but it has nothing to do with anything that is before the House.

FREE SPEECH COMMISSION

4.07 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into recent settlements of libel actions which may be contrary to the public interest.
I am not sure whether in seeking to introduce a Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into recent settlements of libel actions which may be contrary to the public interest I am required to declare an interest, but I gladly do so. I am the managing director of Tribune, a newspaper for which all hon. Members place their regular orders with their newsagents.
In another sense, too, I should declare an interest, in that I am responding to an appeal made by a writer in the New Statesman. I quote what was written in the issue of 7th March by Mr. Anthony Howard. I think that he set out the


position very clearly, and that what he said summarises the incentive behind my Bill. He wrote:
Increasingly of late libel actions have tended to be disposed of by undertakings being given that the complainant will not be mentioned again or at least criticised in a particular context. We have rules against contracts that are in restraint of trade. Why does no one ever worry about arrangements that are clearly in restraint of free discussion?
That is the principle about which I am concerned, and I can perhaps illustrate the practice which appears to be spreading by applying what has occurred to some hypothetical instances. If the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, were to make a settlement with a newspaper insisting that in future that newspaper should neither directly nor indirectly reflect on the competence or the integrity of the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, as it might be, in future publications, I think that everyone would say that that was an extraordinary demand. Indeed, the Prime Minister' has only to indicate to one of his minions that he wants a script from the B.B.C. to be told that he is acting like Torquemada.
But that is precisely the demand which Mr. Derek Marks, the editor of the Daily Express, has required from the newspaper Private Eye in the recent settlement of a libel action. He has required that there shall be no reflection directly or indirectly in future on his editorial competence or integrity.
To take another example, if the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who has a special knowledge of newspaper matters, were to insist in a settlement of a libel action that in future the newspapers concerned should never refer to him in any context whatsoever unless they had prior approval from him in writing, I think that we would regard that as an extraordinary demand, and one that it would be most uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman.
But that is precisely the demand which Mr. Nigel Lawson, the editor of the Spectator, has insisted upon in the settlement of a libel action with Private Eye. Or if I were to insist that, as part of the settlement of a libel action, in future nothing defamatory or malicious were to be printed about me either, say, in the Daily Mirror or in the New Statesman, in my

opinion that would be a most improper demand for me to make.
But it is the case that Mr. Paul Johnson, the editor of the New Statesman, in a libel settlement with Private Eye, has insisted that nothing defamatory or malicious shall be printed about him in that newspaper in future. Nobody should say that that is all right, because, in fact, in the law courts on a numbeh of occasions defamatory statements have been shown to be justified or fair comment in the public interest. Therefore, to insist in advance that such a condition should be accepted is, in my opinion, a restriction on the proper area of free debate.
In the case of the New Statesman, the original demand of the editor to his fellow editor of Private Eye—if I may describe him in that comradely manner—was that there should be no mention whatsoever in any context whatsoever of the editor of the New Statesman or of the New Statesman itself.
I am not at all concerned here with the libels or the alleged libels which may have led to these actions or to these proposed actions in the courts. That has nothing to do with the matter. What I am concerned about solely in this proposed Commission is attempts being made—whether made by newspaper editors or by politicians—to inhibit or prevent future criticism. That seems to me to raise an entirely different principle.
Since I mentioned this matter elsewhere some days ago, and since my statements there have been fully upheld in a letter to The Times, which has not been contraverted in any way by the editors concerned, I have also had the information from a most eminent journalist on the other side of the Atlantic that in the United States, where there is a written constitution which lays down rules about free discussion and free debate, such a settlement of a libel action would be forbidden. It would be considered to be contrary to the public interest there, and in my belief it is contrary to the public interest here.
One of the difficulties about the situation is that nobody knows how extensive this practice may be. It is only by accident that some of the settlements have come to light. Some may have been made in the courts, in which case they have been published, but many may have been


settled before they ever reached the courts, and for all we know there may be a large number of settlements of this character which have been demanded from newspapers and which are preventing free discussion and inhibiting free debate, which I believe should prevail.
I therefore ask leave for a Commission to be established to discover how prevalent this system is and to make recommendations to ensure that the abuse shall not continue. On a number of occasions in the House I have made a defence of some of the activities of Fleet Street. It has not always had an entirely popular appeal here.
In Fleet Street we are inclined to extol John Wilkes and all his glories, and certainly he played a great part in establishing freedom in this country by challenging the privileges and presumptions of the House of Commons. Indeed, John Wilkes was himself a splendid "yellow" journalist who ran a newspaper which would make Private Eye look like a parish magazine. But if John Wilkes, as well as engaging in that sort of trade, had insisted for himself on the kind of protection which these three editors have claimed, he would have made himself the laughing stock of London.
I conclude in these terms. Newspaper editors and proprietors demand, quite rightly in the name of freedom, that politicians should have pretty thick skins. But if anybody raises a finger against them—or applies a foot to them—their cheeks can become as delicate as damask. We should have a fairer system all round. There should be free speech for all within laws of libel governing the whole situation, but with no secret compacts preventing free debate. I submit that this Commission should be established by the House of Commons.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Foot.

FREE SPEECH COMMISSION

Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into recent settlements of libel actions which may be contrary to the public interest, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 9th May, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have published, as usual, my selection of Amendments. The first Amendment selected is No. 1, in page 3, line 22, leave out from 'on' to end of line 24 and insert '1st August, 1970'.
I suggest that with that Amendment we should consider the following Amendments:
No. 2, in line 24, at end insert:
'being a date not earlier than two years after the commencement of this Act'.
No. 3, in line 24, at end add:
(4) No order under subsection (3) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.
No. 32, in page 30, line 25, leave out from 'until' to 'and' in line 27 and insert '1st August, 1970'.
No. 33, in line 36, leave out from 'until' to end of line 38 and insert '1st August, 1970'.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 22, leave out from 'on' to end of line 24 and insert '1st August, 1970'.
May I apologise in advance for the depth of my voice.
Clause 1(3) provides that the power to charge fees in local authority schools in Scotland will continue until a date appointed by an order made by Statutory Instrument. One of the Amendments at present under discussion suggest that that date should be as late as at least two years after the passing of the Bill, but I feel that our suggestion is right. The effect of the Government Amendment is to abolish fee paying in those schools from 1st August, 1970.
I announced on Second Reading that fee paying in education authority schools


would be abolished from that date, and the Bill will expressly provide for that and there will be no need for a Statutory Instrument. The change will ensure that all concerned know precisely when fees will be abolished, and the education authorities concerned will have as much notice as possible to enable them to decide on the future of the schools concerned. Indeed, when we had the rate support grant negotiations with local authorities earlier this year we took in the point and made arrangements in respect of the next two-year period for the finances involved. The local authorities already know the Government's intentions.
The authorities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, which are the only authorities which will have fee-paying secondary schools after the end of this Session, have already been asked to bring forward proposals for the integration of the schools within the comprehensive system, and when the Bill is enacted we propose to press the authorities again regarding these proposals. In considering any proposals I, as Secretary of State, will have very much in mind the need to avoid hardship to the pupils already at fee-paying schools, and parents may be assured that I shall be as much concerned as are the responsible education authorities to ensure that any reorganisation is effected in an orderly manner with due regard to the interests of the pupils and the staff.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are consequential. They depend on the timing of the abolition of fee paying. When we printed the Bill in November we were still in discussion with local authorities. My hon. Friend met them in December. That is why we did not put the date in the Bill right away.
Part of my answer to the Opposition Amendment is that it is obviously undesirable, in the interests of the schools and pupils concerned, that uncertainty about their future should continue. A reasonable time has been allowed for authorities to make proposals for the future of these schools and, particularly, for the integration within a comprehensive system of secondary education of the schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh which are fee-paying and selective. If the abolition of fee paying was delayed for at least another year, the authorities might be tempted to delay still further

their submissions of proposals, and this would be to the detriment of the pupils concerned and of the beneficial effect of reorganisation.
We have debated the principle at considerable length on Second Reading and in seven sittings of the Committee. Now, we are debating a narrow point. I am glad the Opposition have accepted the principle and that their concern, too, is with the timing.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions prematurely.

Mr. Ross: I am following the logic of the Amendments. Indeed, hon. Members will appreciate that delay in implementation for a lengthy period would be quite wrong in the circumstances. The Government have made up their mind, and we have told the local authorities and the people of Scotland.

Mr. Esmond Wright: I must correct the Secretary of State in an assumption that anyone on this side has accepted any principle at all. As I have frequently said, the essence of Conservatism is precisely that it is unprincipled. But I deal with this, because the Secretary of State asked us to, in a narrower sense. He is telling us that he is introducing a date. This was not known to us—and I wonder whether he knew it—in Committee, from 30th January to the middle of March. The assumption was that a Statutory Instrument would implement this part of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here for the Second Reading, but I announced it then.

Mr. Wright: I was here on Second Reading and took part in that debate on 21st January.
The Secretary of State asked us to be specific, so I will be. The insertion of the date of 1st August, 1970, by which fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh should be abolished, is unwise and totally mistimed. New boundaries are being planned for local authorities and the whole character of education, whether comprehensive or otherwise, is bound to be reconsidered. There is the issue of the place of direct grant schools and of schools outside the public sector.
The Public Schools Commission is about to report on the place of grant-aided schools in Scotland. There is the beginnings of a debate—to my taste, all too late—about the rôle in Scotland of sixth-form colleges. If there is a rôle to be played by these denuded, broken institutions, as they will be after 1st August, 1970, perhaps it would be as sixth-form colleges. We have been able to discuss none of these issues, and, because this will be an Act of Parliament, it will be impossible to do any of these things—in particular, to see that Glasgow High School or the Royal High in Edinburgh become the sixth-form colleges which they might well have become.
I therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's timing is bad. I realise that I am speaking to a scholastic expert—as of 13 years ago. Every item in the Bill gives evidence of the antiquity of the principles which we are being reminded are at stake. I look forward not to 1st August, 1970, but to some other date, about which perhaps he knows more than I, when he may well have to return to his original profession as a school teacher in Scotland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not be out of order if he speaks about the Amendment.

Mr. Wright: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is a number of issues and a number of principles at stake even in this apparently tiny suggestion of a precise date. This cannot be considered without considering the character, the quality and the whole function of these relatively few schools in two cities. I admit that we are not discussing principles or the character of comprehensive education, because that is not the debate between us. The character of Scottish education has always been comprehensive. One of the tragedies of the Bill is that it represents the intrusion of English educational dogma into a debate on Scottish education.
We must consider that, as of 1st August, 1970, a small number of schools out of a total of well over 3,000 will, in some degree, be legislated out of existence by decree of this House and the Secretary of State. For a host of reasons, this brings the question of their fate 16

months from now to crisis point. These are old schools. I notice the absence of the only two Etonians in the ranks of the party opposite, one of whom is the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), so I hesitate to say anything about comparisons with Eton—but Glasgow High School is older than Eton and has a history as great and as distinct as Eton's. The Secretary of State will not need to be reminded that that school has provided two Prime Ministers for the United Kingdom this century.
To say that it has defects would be a challenge. A striking feature of the six Committee meetings on this point was that at no moment was a single vestige of criticism made of the quality of those schools. I would have listened with some sympathy if it had; none was made, nor could it be made. These are impressive traditional institutions. In education and, I think, in politics, one defies tradition at one's peril. A school represents far more than simply the men and women who teach there and the boys and girls who study there. There is a quality about the place which is fundamental and should be preserved—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the subsection. We are discussing whether subsection (3) shall come into operation on 1st August, 1970, or two years later. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the timing.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Wright: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is because I am so concerned about 1st August, 1970, and what will happen to those schools thereafter, and the contrast between the present and the future, that I am raising the point about the importance of their quality and character.

Mr. A. Woodburn: If Mr. Speaker permits, would the hon. Gentleman explain that very many distinguished people all over the world come from other schools in Scotland, including a Prime Minister from Lossiemouth?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker would not permit him to do so.

Mr. Wright: I now want to deal with a second point which is fundamental to the date of 1st August, 1970. In his all-too short speech, the Secretary of State


said that local authorities knew already about this decision and date and that they have been asked frequently to bring forward comprehensive proposals. I submit that that is very much of an understatement. Is it not a fact that since August, 1965, there has been pressure from the Government on local authorities to make these precise changes, which they have remained unwilling to carry through?
At a time when this Bill is in danger of becoming an Act, it is ironical that the local authorities of both Glasgow and Edinburgh are still firmly opposed to the whole proposal. When the Secretary of State says that the principle has been accepted, it has not been accepted by this side of the House, and certainly it has not been accepted by either of those two local authorities.
I submit that in putting in this date and this Amendment, there is a serious threat to the whole character of local government in Scotland.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that there is at least as strong an argument in favour of the changes? Even in the present municipal elections, it is clear that the majority of the electorate do not agree with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. After all, the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party polled more than the Scottish Conservative alliances, and they are both heavily committed to the Bill.

Mr. Wright: Again, I doubt whether that is entirely germane to the subject under discussion. If it were, I would suggest that what is true of Aberdeen as of last night is not true of Glasgow, and it is Glasgow and Edinburgh with which we are concerned.
As we see it, this is not only a threat to local government. It brings into question the influence of the central Government on the freedom of a local authority to make its own educational proposals. I have looked through the corporation's minutes, and I know of nothing—

Mr. George Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker ruled earlier that all that we are discussing here is a date. The principle is already in the Bill, and

there are no other general arguments such as that which the hon. Gentleman is advancing. The argument is simply as to when.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He anticipated me by one or two seconds.

Mr. Wright: Then may I return to the point that I was making, since it is of relevance to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency in that the future of Edinburgh's schools is threatened?
As a result of this date, in one area of Edinburgh there will be a curious concentration of schools which will result in a serious threat to truly social comprehensive education. If I am allowed to, I will develop that point in a moment.
By putting in this date and making it part of the Act, there is a real threat to local authority control of education. What worries me is how far this system can continue. What is to stop the Secretary of State, assuming that there is time in a congested timetable, bringing forward similar proposals for direct grant schools, independent schools or any other school outside the State system?

Mr. William Hannan: If there is a danger to local authorities in the Bill, how is the danger lessened or dispelled by the fact that the date is to be two years' hence? Will not the danger be the same then?

Mr. Wright: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman that there will be an election before then and that matters will be reversed? If he says that, I welcome it.

Mr. Hannan: I said nothing of the sort.

Mr. Wright: There is a danger in legislation which is binding on two distinguished and old local authorities, Glasgow and Edinburgh, and their choice about what they believe is proper for the education of their children.
If this date goes through, we shall face a new social problem in Glasgow after 1st August, 1970. Where is Glasgow High School to move? It cannot stay in the gradually dying city centre of Glasgow. It will have to move, at a


cost which is carefully omitted from the somewhat fanciful estimates mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State earlier in our debates.
Plainly, this situation is developing already in Edinburgh. There is a real problem that after August, 1970, the comprehensive character of Glasgow's and Edinburgh's education will be worsened rather than helped. There is a real danger of the disappearance from the city centre—and any product of Glasgow's schools and university should know it as well as I do—

Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright), and I seek your guidance. I am sorry that I have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he has not a great deal of experience in this House. However, we have spent a long time in Committee discussing principles, and we shall waste further time, when there are other valuable educational matters to be discussed, unless the hon. Gentleman sticks to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will stop any hon. Member who is out of order. At the moment, I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) is in order.

Mr. Wright: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that this is a real issue, and I assure hon. Members that I am not wasting time on the point. We are discussing a matter which is fundamental to Glasgow and Edinburgh. The right hon. Lady taught in their schools, and she must know that far better than I do.
After 1st August, 1970, there will be a further social problem created, not eased, by this legislation. I am worried about the future of those schools, about the cost to the local authorities and the Exchequer, and about what is likely to happen to parents after August, 1970. Surely they will gradually move into the snob areas—the West Ends of the two cities—and they will exacerbate the social problems of those cities.
There are real problems implicit in this choice of date and in the Amendment. Moreover, there is the very serious

fact—I was about to say "tragedy"—that after this date one form of comprehensive education is destroyed. Too often, hon. Members opposite and educationists in general talk about comprehensive education as if it involved the character of a single school. After August, 1970, a type of school will be destroyed in Glasgow and Edinburgh and, in that sense, comprehensive education itself is weakened.
I come now to a point which I raise with some hesitation. Whenever one mentions the word "religion" or "Catholic", there is a buzz through any audience. I am trying to speak on this objectively. I would like to be assured that there has been genuine consultation with Glasgow's Catholic community, which constitutes a third of the population. We are emphasising dates, but there is another date which must be borne in mind. As I understand, there is an agreement which goes well beyond August, 1970, and makes the Dowanhill area of Glasgow sacrosanct to Catholic education up to the year 2008. The Under-Secretary was a little vague about it in Committee. Perhaps he could be a little more explicit today, because the dates are important.
I want now, very briefly, to raise one or two other matters because, implicit in the argument from this side of the House, there are other problems which are just as profound as those that I have already mentioned. I implied at the beginning of my remarks that there was a place for these schools after 1970 as sixth-form colleges. I wonder how much attention has seriously been paid by the Government to the rôle of the fifth and sixth forms in these schools. They are very large fifth and sixth forms. Where will they go in September, 1970, and onwards? Are they to be pushed into the already overcrowded schools in other areas, and, if so, which? Are they to be moved by bus—that awful feature of American school education which destroys the whole character of locality?
The essence of the claim from the Goverment side is that there should be a sense of territorial community. The neighbourhood school thesis is at the core. The only way in which these schools can continue to function is to have organised groups of children moving in by bus, morning, noon and night. On the


scale to which this will increase after August, 1970, this will become a serious educational disadvantage.
I believe that there are fundamental misconceptions here in any event. The major misconception is that after 1st August, 1970, these schools will in some curious way be transformed. In fact, they will have to remain selective. They will have to stream, because the whole character of school education involves selectivity and streaming. The Government are on a false wicket when they suggest that there is a trend to comprehensive education which can absorb these schools and improve them in doing so.
What is at issue here is absolutely fundamental. These schools have trained and prepared what one can call the leaders in Glasgow and Edinburgh—not exclusively the leaders. One presses buttons and says "leaders", and one gets a chorus of groans; one says "elite", and one gets a chorus of groans.
The purpose of education is to provide and train leaders, as it is to train everyone in a class or in a school. It is the job of schools to do the best for all their pupils. I suggest that this Measure will destroy that central function in these particular schools.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the principle of the Clause. We are discussing merely the time factor which the Amendment suggests. Perhaps the hon. Member will relate his remarks more specifically to that point.

Mr. Wright: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will gather from the whole character of what I am saying, I am suggesting that it is impossible to separate from the date at which the principles become applied the whole character of what will then happen to these schools. I believe that were there time in the Parliamentary calendar, this would not be by any means the end of the story.
I am surprised that if it is dogma which motivates the Government, as I believe that it is, in this issue, it is these particular schools, with their minute fees of £20 and £25, that are under attack. I believe that the Government are motivated in this issue by both dogma and envy. These are the most malicious ways in which to bring forward educational proposals.

Miss Herbison: Time and time again, we have had from hon. Members opposite the suggestion of very small fees. Did not the hon. Member or his friends, at the big meeting which they had in Glasgow, find out that the outwith fees will go up to £155 a year, which will affect my constituents who travel in to these schools?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Wright: I recall that the right hon. Lady made that point effectively in Committee. I appreciate the point, but these are a relatively small number of pupils compared with the overwhelming number in the centre of the City.
I believe the Amendment to be ill-conceived and mistimed. I ask the Government whether they can assure us that there are significant groups in Glasgow and Edinburgh who are asking for this proposal that as of 1st August, 1970, these schools should cease to be fee-paying. Have the headmasters asked for it? I know that they have not, because I have a document which I could cite. Have the corporations of the two cities asked for it? Of course not. Have the pupils concerned asked for it? Of course not. Have the parent/teacher associations asked for it? Most certainly not. Indeed, I have a memorandum indicating that no fewer than 1,750 ex-pupils of Glasgow High School are against the proposal that as of 1st August, 1970, their school should cease to be fee-paying.
No one is in favour of this proposal. I have heard no one in Glasgow or Edinburgh expressing anything but contempt for it. It is for these reasons, because no one is in favour of it, that I shall be asking my hon. Friends on this side of the House to oppose the Amendment and to oppose the date.

Mr. Willis: We have just had an example of a university lecturer's approach to a specific problem.

Mr. Wright: On a point of order. Since the word "lecturer" has been used, may I correct the right hon. Gentleman? The title is professor, if the right hon. Gentleman must use it.

Mr. Willis: That makes it even worse. If that is the way a university professor applies his mind to a specific proposition, heaven help us. It is no wonder that


people hold up their hands at university professors and we get the woolly emanations that we do from a number of these gentlemen.
Nine-tenths of the hon. Member's speech did not relate to the proposition concerning the date. Nine-tenths of his speech would provide a very good argument against his own Amendment, which suggests that the date should be
not earlier than two years after the commencement of this Act
Nine-tenths of the hon. Member's argument was a rebuttal of his own Amendment.
I am amazed that the hon. Member should have come to the Dispatch Box and said what he did—or perhaps I should not have been amazed. I have been a Member of the House a long time and I have heard the Tories so often that I ought not to be amazed. In my innocence, however, I always expect rather more of the Tories than they give, but perhaps I am wrong in that expectation.
We are asked now to say that the change should take place on 1st August, 1970. It is about time that it took place. It is about time that local authorities were given a specific date by which to bring it into operation. As far as I know, the Government have been trying to deal with this matter in an amicable way with the local authorities concerned for three or four years. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has, I know, had consultations with Edinburgh Corporation—and, I suppose, with Glasgow, too—on this matter.
Let us not beat about the bush. Edinburgh Corporation would never bring this proposal into operation on its own.
If we believe that in the interests of the country as a whole this principle should be established throughout the country, as all Governments have done when they believed something was in the national interest, we should say to the local authorities that it has to be done by a specific date. If Governments think that a thing is right and proper, introduces a certain element of social justice, and is good for the country as a whole, all Governments tell local authorities what to do. A local authority has very little power to do anything except

through the power given to it by the House of Commons.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the point that if, instead of accepting the Government's Amendment, we accepted the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends an opportunity would be given to the country to decide whether it agreed with the Government's present view of what is in the country's interests? If it agreed the Government could then go forward, but if not the Government would not got forward with the proposal.

Mr. Willis: This was in the Labour Party election manifesto in 1966 and in 1964, when we swept the Tories out of power in Scotland. The hon. Member ought to be praising my right hon. Friend for keeping the promise he made to the electorate, not criticising him. Hon. Members opposite are apt to say that a proposal has not been in election addresses, but this was in our election programme.

Mr. George Younger: Does this interesting new principle cover prescription charges, which the Labour Party said it would abolish and which it has, in fact, increased?

Mr. Willis: We are discussing this matter contained in the Amendment. I am prepared to discuss other matters at the appropriate time. I am prepared to discuss anything with hon. Members opposite for they are so easy to meet and beat. We have had approval for this proposal. Why should we wait for another election? Hon. Members opposite have put forward an Amendment referring to a two-year period because they are sufficiently misguided as to think that they will form the Government after the next election. This is another of the hallucinations from which they suffer. They hope that they will be able to avoid bringing this reform into operation, but we are pledged to do so. I am, therefore, glad that my right hon. Friend proposes to put the date in the Bill which will enable us to do this and to see that local authorities carry it out.
What a load of nonsense the hon. Member for Pollok talked. He talked about abolishing fee-paying schools. We are not abolishing any schools, but abolishing fee-paying. The Royal High


will still be there with the same buildings and masters and, for the time being, the same children. Naturally, one is always changing educational patterns. This goes on all the time. My right hon. Friend said that he was fully conscious of his responsibility in respect of particular children. We shall have the same school with the same equipment and all the expert guidance and teaching staff. All we have said is that we would abolish the fees.

Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be announcing an entirely new doctrine and flying in the face of everything that was said by the Secretary of State in Committee. Is he trying to inform the House of Commons that if we allow this Amendment to go through all that will happen will be the abolition of fees and that the schools will continue in their character and traditions for all time? If so, he is completely contradicting his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Willis: I was saying that when the change takes place this is what will happen. In non-fee-paying schools we are always changing particular uses and the channels through which children obtain their education. This takes place all the time and I should have thought that it would appeal to the hon. Member for Pollok. In Edinburgh, such-and-such a school has its purpose changed and different children go to it to meet the latest educational ideas put into operation by the corporation. It is a load of rubbish to talk about abolishing history. I am amazed at the hon. Member.

Mr. Hannan: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) has spent too much time on television.

Mr. Willis: Yes, when he is not running the Glasgow Herald.

Mr. Hannan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that towards the end of his professorial career in Glasgow the hon. Member spent far too much time on television?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is departing too much from the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I thought that the hon. Member was spending his time in the offices of the Glasgow Herald. Obviously, he is getting out of touch with his profession and ought to go back to it to get more in touch.
The date in this Amendment is a much better one than that in the Tory Amendment, because it would mean that we would keep our promise. It would also mean that Edinburgh and Glasgow Corporations would know that this change would happen on a certain date. Then it would be open to them to take the necessary steps to see that it took place with as little trouble as possible and to see that the problems to which hon. Members opposite have referred will not arise. The trouble has been that there has been nothing definite. There has always been the hope in the breasts of many Edinburgh councillors that somehow they would get around this—somehow they would last out for five, 10 or 20 years until the Tories got back into power.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on putting in the date 1st August, 1970, and I shall be pleased to support the Amendment.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I did not have the privilege of being a member of the Committee. Nor did I have the good fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading. Therefore, I hope that on this Amendment I shall be allowed to make clear that I strongly disapprove of the Clause and the purpose to which the Amendment refers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address her remarks to the Amendment.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was keen to get on the record the words you allowed me to get there.
While I had not the privilege of being on the Committee I was engaged on something which is particularly relevant to the date 1st August, 1970, which may be more fruitful than the proceedings of the Committee on this Bill, namely, deciding the future boundaries of all Scotland. In my privileged position as a member of the Royal Commission on Local Government, although I have no intention of going into detail I can say that the main purpose of that Commission is to redraw the boundaries of all Scotland.
I hope that in debating this Amendment hon. Members will recognise that this has been going on. We are discussing a Government Amendment which


emanates from the same Government that set up the Royal Commission on Local Government and which proposes to abolish fee paying in certain schools by 1st August, 1970, in the full knowledge that by that time completely new boundaries will have been drawn for Scotland.
5.0 p.m.
It is possible that, as the Secretary of State optimistically suggested, local authorities will have submitted plans for the use of the buildings which are concerned with the date proposed in the Amendment. It is equally probable that any alteration in boundary would affect such a local authority's determination in this respect. It is serious that one of the buildings concerned is a particularly good one. If, on 1st August, 1970, it ceases to function in its present form and since, as the Secretary of State said, local authorities are charged with the duty of determining what should happen to the building. I want to know one or two things from the Under-Secretary.
The Secretary of State said that the local authorities are themselves to decide upon the future of the schools. In the process of making proposals no assurance has been given as to where local authorities will stand either as regards the cash for the replacement of the buildings if they have to be erected elsewhere or as regards any compensation for providing, in a totally different place, the extra school places which may be required as a result of the Amendment. I shall come later to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) in connection with sixth forms.
The Secretary of State brought out a second and equally important point—namely, the hardship to the pupils presently in these schools. If the Government are genuinely interested in education—some of the expressions used by hon. Members opposite in this debate cause one to doubt that—one would at least expect from the Government a definite assurance that the children concerned will not suffer educationally.

Mr. James Dempsey: How can they suffer?

Miss Harvie Anderson: They can suffer easily. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who did not have the courtesy to rise to make that interjection, will think about his own sixth forms.

Mr. Dempsey: rose—

Miss Harvie Anderson: I will not give way. I will finish this first.
If a child is coming up to an important examination, the last thing that is wanted is a change in his curriculum or his teacher. It is nonsense for hon. Members opposite to suggest that there will be no change, except the abolition of fees. Whatever proposals they make, local authorities, even those which have the utmost good will educationally—and these are the vast majority—will be hard pushed to put forward a scheme which avoids the interruption of the education of the children of whom I am speaking. If there is one thing more emphatic than any other in this whole matter, it is that the sixth form education in these schools is that which has produced for Scotland the outstanding successes of successive generations.
Yet this sixth form, whatever size it may be, is to come to an end in its present form on a specific date—1st August, 1970. This can have no educational merit. I am, therefore, forced to the conclusion that, as all Scotland has now realised, this is a piece of political chicanery put forward under the guise of education. So, on 1st August, 1970, the full facilities for the first-class sixth form education provided in these schools will cease in its present form.
The Secretary of State told us that local authorities have still to make their proposals. We do not even know what alternative will be available. We know that some children will undoubtedly be going elsewhere. If one of the proposals is that from 2nd August, 1970, these schools shall suddenly reconstitute themselves as sixth-form colleges, that is a very curious proposition, for two reasons.
First, as my hon. Friend said, there will be much more complicated travelling arrangements than there are under the zoning arrangements, although they certainly entail travelling in many places. It should be recognised that in the more sparsely populated parts of Scotland every education committee is deeply concerned about the effect upon children who


have to travel long distances to and from school.

Mr. Willis: This is nothing to do with the Amendment.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Standing Committee throughout and who has already had his opportunity to speak, kindly allow me to develop my theme?

Mr. Willis: rose—

Miss Harvie Anderson: No, I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman had ample opportunity. These buildings, unique in Scotland, will be used to less than the best advantage as from 1st August, 1970.
I oppose the Amendment, for two reasons. First, by setting a date, the maximum disruption is being caused to the education of the children who will then be in the schools.

Mr. Willis: Rubbish.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Time will tell. The right hon. Gentleman will not have to present this to his electorate. If he had to, he would not be returned to tell the tale.
Secondly, it is a very remarkable thing to say that from 1st August, 1970 the offer of parents who willingly pay fees in their rightful belief that they should exercise every opportunity for their children will no longer be accepted and, in the same breath, to take higher fees from people needing spectacles and teeth—fees which they can ill afford to pay. That is a second thing which makes such a mockery of the abolition of fee paying under false pretences.
Finally, selection is one of the questions which will arise consequent on the passing of the Amendment if, in the regrettable event of the Government's holding on sufficiently long, it is passed. On Second Reading, I made it plain in an intervention that people who
believe that as a result of this Bill there will be social equality and academic equality in Eastwood and Easterhouse".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 350.]
will be proved sadly wrong.
I believe that by the operation of this part of the Bill and by placing a definite date on the closure of these great schools

in their present form the social and educational inequalities which most of us—including, curiously enough, some of us on this side—would like to see abolished will be exaggerated.
As I believe that selection in some form will remain, by whatever name it is called, I believe that there is a good deal less wrong with this selection which enables those great schools to hold the record which they have, even if it costs parents something in sacrifice to send their children there. I am sure that selection will continue, whatever the Government try to do under the Bill, so I support the opposition to this Amendment, which I regard as wholly ill-conceived and contrary to true educational interests.

Mr. Dewar: I have listened with some amazement to the speeches which we have heard so far from the Conservative benches. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) seemed to bring a confusion of mind to the problems of education in Scotland which, to be fair to him, he did not bring to the machinations of the early Tudors.
I was sorry, for example, to hear the hon. Gentleman sneer at my right hon. Friend's record in education. If he so values practical teaching experience in a discussion on Bills of this kind, he must look with despair upon his own benches, where, I understand, teaching is wholly unrepresented, at least at school level.
At one point, the hon. Gentleman argued, or appeared to argue, that these fee-paying schools would be abolished root and branch de facto, on 1st August, 1970. A minute or two later he was explaining with great vehemence that, because of the innate virtues of selection and streaming, it was impossible to destroy these schools but they would march on indissoluble and unbowed, whatever the wicked Labour Government might do.
Next, the hon. Gentleman said that these schools could not succeed if one did not have selection because they would have no catchment area to feed them as ordinary comprehensive schools. Shortly afterwards, however, he said that it would be unfair to ask people presently at these schools to bus out to other centres of education. Although I do not necessarily agree that they would be asked to do that,


the whole point of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that they must bus in now because there is no population in the immediate area to serve the schools.
Those are small points, but they are symptomatic of the confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind, caused, I charitably assume, by his efforts to make propaganda points within the narrow limits of order of the present debate. It did him no credit.
I was surprised to hear that there had been no criticism of these schools in Committee. I take the hon. Gentleman's word for that. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I cannot say. I should have expected there to be plenty of criticism, on a number of grounds. What we are asked to do by the Opposition, on this Amendment, is to allow these schools to run on in an unreconstructed state, as presently constituted with their present methods of entry and fees, for at least two years longer than the Government intend.
I assume that there lurks in the back of their minds—it was openly expressed by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—the thought that they may be able, for a combination of reasons, to get back into power and reverse the trend. In other words, what we are invited to do is to contemplate the continuance of these schools indefinitely. That is what the argument is about.
I am not prepared to contemplate that continuance. I shall not argue at length the basic merits or demerits of the schools. I say only—I put it in, so to speak, vestigial shorthand which, I am sure all those who attended the Standing Committee will understand—that I accept that these schools are socially divisive. I accept that anyone who has moved among them or has examined their composition recognises that they are largely middle-class orientated. Almost anyone accepts that an I.Q. can be taught.
A child with a middle-income background, coming from a background with a good basic vocabulary, with books readily available and with an academic tradition in the home, can be given an enormous advantage, even though it is argued that the basis of entry to these

schools is nominally not social class but ability. A self-perpetuating system is developed which keeps the schools forever established upon a comparatively narrow class basis.
The hon. Member for Pollok argued that there was no attempt by any responsible body of opinion—I assume that he excludes us as in some way irresponsible—to preserve that basis. Let him talk to school teachers. I thought it significant that one body which he did not quote was the Educational Institute of Scotland, which came down strongly in favour of the abolition of fees and a changed system of entry to these schools, saying that the schools existed to perpetuate the advantages of segregation, with class-mates of the same background, and then talked of the common charge of snobbery.
I might not be so blunt as to call it the common charge of snobbery. In my view, people delude themselves into thinking that there are positive advantages to be derived from this form of education. However, the opinions of the Educational Institute of Scotland are a little more representative and impartial than those of, say, the parents who are concerned about and connected with these schools specifically and who, understandably, have a vested interest in arguing for their continuance.

Mr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman asks for the views of the E.I.S. I shall quote from its memorandum:
Where the school has exceptionally well equipped premises, however, a highly efficient staff and a long tradition of fine academic achievement, one would hope that these resources could be preserved intact; the breaking up of a good school can hardly be regarded as furthering the progress of education.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Dewar: That is not dealing with the question of fees. That statement of the virtues of a school, an unexceptionable statement, would not preclude the use of such a school and its facilities, if they are sound, changing the method of entry and trying to build a new and good school which is much more broadly based socially and educationally, using and continuing the traditions inherited from the previous school. There is no inconsistency there at all. If the hon. Gentleman has read the E.I.S. memorandum properly, he can have no doubt on which


side of the argument it has come down, and come down very firmly.
I have listened with care to the arguments put up by the Opposition. Some of them, I suppose, might almost be described as relevant, though all of them are bad. I take one or two of the most outstanding. The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson)—she was not the first—talked about the reorganisation of local government. Once again, the Government are invited to go into a state of paralysis while waiting for the Wheatley report to appear, for the debates to take place, for a consensus to be reached, and for legislation to be pushed through.
Apparently, we are invited to accept a situation in which there can be no legislation on a wide range of matters in Scotland until that long and inevitably laborious process comes to an end. But that would be intolerable, and the suggestion can be made only because hon. Members opposite are unable to think of anything else to put up as an argument to delay the House in this matter.
I might even have had some sympathy for the argument if the Bill were drawing local authority boundaries for some sort of educational purpose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing an Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks a little more closely to that Amendment.

Mr. Dewar: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The argument put up by the Opposition is that we ought to delay for two years until we have the report on local government reorganisation in Scotland. I am pointing out that that is not a valid argument. The simple reason is that what the Government are trying to do is to set a date admittedly before the report will be implemented or, perhaps, even discussed at length, but that is of no importance because Glasgow and Edinburgh are the only two areas involved.
Never mind how local government is reorganised in Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh are bound to be the centre of, or perhaps the sole components of, a new local government unit. It is not a question of drawing new boundaries and discovering that they will not coincide

with something which will emerge from Wheatley. It is a completely different situation.
We are abolishing an educational anachronism which has survived with disastrous effects in only two areas of Scotland. We are not here discussing administrative boundaries. Therefore, Wheatley is basically irrelevant.

Mr. Willis: And we have no guarantee that the Government will accept the recommendations of the Wheatley Committee.

Mr. Dewar: That is so, but in any case it does not seem to me that the argument is of importance here.
Second, the hon. Member for Pollok argued with some eloquence that what is proposed here is a threat to the independence and freedom of action of local authorities. I can see the force of that argument, and I am not entirely unsympathetic to it. It is always extremely difficult to draw the line; there is always a balance to be struck between local and central Government. That is a platitude with which no one will disagree.
It has been rightly pointed out that whether the change is put off for two years this question remains. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) had said that this is not a right that central Government should have, that they should not be able to impose on local authorities a scheme of this nature, and that the Opposition object to this root and branch, and pledge themselves never to do anything like it when they return to office, that would have been fair and we could have had a realistic argument. But he did not do so. He merely said, "We do not like this provision, and we want to push it as far back as possible". His amendment does not argue about the fundamental right of central Government to set a date by which fees are to be abolished, and therefore again it seems to me that the argument falls.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an abuse of power to introduce such a change a few weeks before the Government go out of office?

Mr. Dewar: Very often as I walk around the Parliament House I am struck


by the air of unreality in the place, as though it were divorced from what is happening in the real realms of society. I worry considerably about the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I respect, and I suggest that he goes out and talks to people and uses his eyes and ears. He will then realise that that is not a point of great substance.
However, it leads me to the more important point behind all the arguments by the Opposition. They have said in effect, "Give us two years, and we shall beat Labour. We shall be back in, and everything will be all right." In tandem with that goes the argument that the Labour Party has no mandate for introducing an early date for abolishing fees and that the people of Scotland—or perhaps it would be fairer to say the people of Glasgow and Edinburgh, who are really involved—do not want the change to be made.
I do not accept either proposition. If we have the misfortune of the Conservative Party winning the next General Election, it would be a piece of obtuse nonsense to say that it did so because of the question of fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh. The next General Election will be won on a United Kingdom scale for a whole plethora of reasons. Hon. Members opposite are saying that within six months or perhaps a year or two of winning a General Election, but certainly halfway through their term in office, no Government should implement any controversial legislation, just in case there has been a shift in public opinion which will manifest itself at a General Election at an indeterminate point in the future. That is a lunatic proposition which would not for a moment be entertained in private conversation at a serious level by a single hon. Member opposite. I do not see why they should insult the House by trying to argue it now.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the House. I do not think that anybody would suggest that a Government in their last two years in office are not entitled to introduce highly controversial legislation, but the circumstances of the present Government are exceptional. It is clear that they have lost all support in the country.

That is the argument for saying that they should not introduce controversial legislation.

Mr. Dewar: I think that the hon. Gentleman's constituency lies between the cities of Aberdeen and Dundee, so I am possibly less sympathetic to that point coming from him than I would have been two or three days ago.
But let us take the argument seriously and analyse it. If we are talking about Glasgow and Edinburgh and the electoral situation, hon. Members opposite are on very weak ground. In 1968, for example, we had the first signs of a violent swing in Glasgow's elections, the main beneficiaries of which were the Scottish Nationalist Party. In invite hon. Members to look at the minutes of Glasgow Corporation for 27th September, 1968 from which they will see that the Scottish Nationalist Party is absolutely committed to the abolition of fee-paying in schools. It is quite clear, and I revel in the fact, that in 1969 the Scottish Nationalists have received a very severe electoral check, but I do not imagine that any hon. Member opposite will say that this was as a result of their stand on fee-paying schools.
The exact details of the votes cast yesterday are not available yet, but the general position is clear. Two parties, the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalist Party, are committed publicly to the abolition of fees at an early date and one party, the Conservative-Progressive mongrel alliance, is opposed to it and tries bravely to make it an electoral issue. It may be unfair, and not valid argument, to make this point, because of the multiplicity of election issues, but I am trying to counter the kind of thesis advanced by the Opposition in going in for arid numbers games and talking about popular mandates. We find that the parties that supported my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench obtained the majority of the votes cast in Glasgow's municipal elections.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about arid figures, he should at least get his facts right. He has not done his homework. The Scottish Nationalist candidate in one ward in my constituency specifically said that he was against the abolition of fee-paying


schools and the candidate in the other simply did not mention the question of education in his election address.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not pursue the discussion on yesterday's elections in Scotland too far on this Amendment.

Mr. Dewar: I shall not pursue it, Mr. Speaker. The personal eccentricities of individual Scottish Nationalist candidates would defeat almost anyone.
I merely refer the House again to the Glasgow Corporation minutes for 27th September, showing that the motion moved by the leader of the Scottish Nationalist group was strongly in favour of the abolition of fees at an early date. I am only trying to point out to hon. Members that if they try to argue in terms of a mandate they will find themselves in considerable difficulties for the reasons I have given, which I think are clear.
I am very tempted to become embroiled in the incredible arguments the hon. Member for Pollok advanced on the nature of comprehensive education, but I do not intend to delay the House. I make no bones about the fact that I would like to see a complete change in the method of entry and character of the schools. I cannot see how the removal of fees would militate against comprehensive education. The great problem of comprehensive education in Glasgow and Edinburgh is that in Edinburgh about 37 per cent. of secondary school children are opting out and going to fee-paying schools of one sort or another, while in Glasgow the proportion is as high as 15 per cent. One cannot run any kind of meaningful comprehensive system faced with that situation. It may be that that is something of which hon. Members opposite approve, but I object to their prating on here about their definition of comprehensives in the face of such facts. I hope that the House will not contemplate allowing the situation to drift on in the hope that at a future date the Conservatives will be able to stultify the present unfortunate and divisive educational situation.
The hon. Member for Pollok talked about the dangers of middle-class housing grouped around what the occupiers consider to be suitable schools with a suitable social tone, as though at present

we do not have middle-class ghettoes—there are perfect examples. It might be advantageous if they congregated around schools within the city boundaries, when at least the occupiers might be able to bear some of the rate burdens they are too keen to escape at present.
There is no doubt that at present we have an educationally and socially divisive situation, and equally one that is divisive in terms of housing pattern. It is not possible to argue, as the hon. Gentleman did, that by destroying these schools we shall in any way make the situation one whit the worse.
I am clear in my belief that the Bill is a good one and should therefore be implemented quickly and that the Government Amendment should have the support of the House. We should not continue the present situation. Reference has been made to the High Schools of Glasgow's memorandum circulated among hon. Members, which said that the present system should not be replaced except by some other system of "proven worth". The question is, proven worth for whom? Many of those arguing for postponement of the implementation of this provision are thinking about the vested interests of people attending these schools alone. Of course we must consider them and ensure that there is a proper phasing-out so that individual children are not victimised, but it is essential to think of the good of the education system as a whole, of the kids who, for a variety or reasons, do not get the chances which, as most people attending these schools would admit, of privileges and advantages. We have to think on this wider scale and that is why I support the Government Amendment wholeheartedly.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: It is surprising that the Secretary of State should have said that his motive in introducing the Amendment was one of kindness in order to put Edinburgh Corporation out of its uncertainty. Kindness is not a virtue with which I particularly associate him so far as Edinburgh is concerned. Many people in Edinburgh would also disagree with his observation.
Despite what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) has said


about the results of the local elections yesterday, I say categorically, because I believe it to be true, that the extra votes given to the Progressives and to the Conservative candidates in the city of Edinburgh were in some part at least inspired by the campaign on this matter, which played a prominent part in the election literature and at all the meetings held by those parties. This is arguable, of course, but I believe that it is a valid assumption.
On the Amendment, we are arguing about three different dates—that is the nub of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) said that she wanted quite a lot of information from the Under-Secretary of State. She was not a member of the Standing Committee. I was. One of the many depressing features of the Committee stage was the general refusal and disinclination of the hon. Gentleman to answer a lot of categorical questions put to him. In so doing, I believe that he prolonged the Committee stage. A great number of questions remain to be answered, and that is why I believe, unless the hon. Gentleman intends to turn over a new leaf tonight, that it would be better to have the later date rather than earlier dates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) put many detailed questions in Committee about the future place of the present fee-paying schools in Glasgow in a comprehensive territorial set-up. No answer was given to him by the hon. Gentleman. I, too, asked many questions, reasonably important ones, on both Second Reading and in Committee, and I would have thought it only prudent and essential practically to look at the future, for example, of the Royal High School in Edinburgh, which happens to be in my constituency, if it is to go comprehensive either at some specified date—as was originally provided in the Bill—or on 1st August, 1970, or two years from the commencement of the Bill as an Act.
What sort of questions is one entitled to put to which we want an answer before one of these dates? I go solely on what I am told by people I believe to be authorities on education—that the Royal High School, with 750 pupils, is too small to be a proper comprehensive school. It is

generally accepted, I understand, that about 1,700 is the ideal figure. The school has been built at considerable expense for boys only. The Minister might say, Very well. Build another 750 places for girls. Then we would have about the right size." I suppose that this would cost another £1 million, but this is an area which is rapidly becoming over-schooled while there is a shortage of accommodation elsewhere. Not one observation was made by the hon. Gentleman about the Royal High School throughout the Committee stage.
The hon. Gentleman has told us that the initiative will rest with Edinburgh once the Bill goes through, and today the right hon. Gentleman said categorically that he would be pressing Edinburgh and Glasgow again to let him have their views. The clear implication is that the Government have not had but want to get some proposals from these cities and, having got them, will consider them. I want to quote what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, because this is a matter of considerable relevance and importance. He said:
I told Edinburgh Corporation a very long time ago, and Glasgow Corporation, that if they would put up proposals for the integration of these schools within the comprehensive system, looking at the position seriously, if they would bring proposals which they said had to be modified considerably, because of their practical problems, I would be prepared to look at those problems as sympathetically as I could. That offer still stands.
Now follow the really important words:
Neither authority has brought forward any kind of proposals, and I have not been able to talk with them about the practical problems."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13th February, 1969; c. 235.]
I have a letter from the Convener of the Education Committee of Edinburgh Corporation dated 9th August, 1968, and I want to quote what he said:
Some 18 months ago Edinburgh Corporation submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland its proposals for the implementation of a comprehensive system of secondary education in the City as required by S.E.D Circular 600.
In no circumstances, if that is true, can it be said by the hon. Gentleman that Edinburgh Corporation has made no kind of proposals. One of these statements is false—it must be—and I suspect that, since one of the four points which, I am informed, were made by Edinburgh Corporation in its proposals included the


retention of the fee-paying Royal High School and James Gillespie's School, he dismissed it out of hand and said that none of the other three were of any validity. It may be right for him to do so, but it is not right for him to say that he has not had any kind of proposals from Edinburgh Corporation. That he is on the record as saying, and it is completely and absolutely denied by the convenor of the education authority.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): What I said in Committee was that I had asked both Edinburgh Corporation and Glasgow Corporation if they would put forward proposals for the integration of these schools within the comprehensive system, and that is precisely what I have said they have not done. There is no misunderstanding between me and the Edinburgh Education Authority on this matter. I happened to meet the convener subsequent to the letter which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, and there is no misunderstanding between us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is going a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Stodart: I have made it clear all along that this debate is about dates. There is clearly a misunderstanding. But if there is misunderstanding, if there is exploration to be done, it is better to be done within the later date rather than to have to hurry the matter and cram it in before 1st August, 1970.
The hon. Gentleman has not satisfied the Opposition that he has made any effort to meet the constructive proposals of the corporations, and until he convinces us of this and until he answers some of the questions as to how the High School is to fit in we shall demand that he is given more time before operating this provision.

Mr. Dempsey: I have been studying the Amendment and I am surprised that the debate should have touched on so many subjects—the reorganisation of secondary schools, transport services, the grading of school children and everything else except the shortage of teachers. This indicates the barrenness of the Opposition's argument. They have no case to submit, but they have to say something and so the hon. Member for Glasgow,

Pollok (Mr. Wright) starts the ball rolling by introducing all these irrelevancies. He did not deal with the Government's Amendment, which suggests that this provision should be introduced by 1st August, 1970.
I am not happy about the Amendment. My criticism of my right hon. Friend is that he is waiting too long. I used to think that he was firm and stern, a man of great conviction, but he is bending to the Opposition too much, and I dislike that because they have treated his kindness as a sign of weakness.
I see no reason why fee paying should not be abolished at an early date. The main purpose of fee paying has not been mentioned by the Opposition. They have not had the honesty of purpose or the temerity of conviction to mention it. Fee paying is the perpetuation of privilege. What experience have hon. Members opposite of organising fee-paying schools and then abolishing fee paying? Have they ever had to undertake that task? Have they seen it in operation? Have they studied the implications?

Mr. MacArthur: I have.

Mr. Dempsey: I have. In the early months of 1946, when I was a new member of Lanarkshire Education Authority, we abolished fee paying in the second largest authority in Scotland, larger than Edinburgh. Incidentally, our election address mentioned our plan to do so. The electors gave us a mandate to do so and we did it. We did not have this awful reaction which the hon. Member for Pollok has mentioned, this serious situation, this catastrophe in modern education, this pitching of young people out of school, this intolerance in administration, this bureaucracy. They did not exist. The whole system was administered by humane Labour members of the local authority. My colleagues in the House are as humane as those in Lanarkshire and will operate this provision with the same humanity.
5.45 p.m.
We ended the problem. Pupils were coming from all the far corners of that county and were occupying places denied to local pupils of greater ability, greater knowledge, with better results and much more capable both physically and mentally. There was no room at the inn


because the fee payers were occupying the places.
This is what happens in fee paying schools. There can be no reasonable argument against equality of opportunity in education. Why should not ability be the determining factor and not the depth of the parental purse? Surely that is the proper approach to education. If we decide that we want to produce the leaders of our society in the next generation of citizens, we should fix dates when fee paying can be abolished and when merit will be the sole criterion for admitting pupils to various schools.
This has nothing to do with the reorganisation of secondary education, but that is what the argument has been made to be. Whether there is reorganisation or not, the abilition of fee paying would not affect the situation one iota. Whether there were still selective schools or comprehensive schools, the situation would not be affected by the abolition of fee paying. This is a local authority school, a publicly owned school and the ratepayers and taxpayers are already paying for it, for the teachers and the buildings, and will continue to do so. At the same time, he who pays the piper should call the tune and merit will be the qualification for admission, not the privilege of finance.

Mr. John Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dempsey: I am tempted not to do so because the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) refused to give way to me. However, I will be a gentleman and give way.

Mr. Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how he would judge merit for entry to these schools?

Mr. Dempsey: I have explained that it would not be by depth of pocket. It would be the ability of the pupil. I am sure that the hon. Member does not require me to lecture him on ability, although I could give a jolly good lecture on ability. Ability is a method whereby we determine the standards of pupils. I believe that it should be based on the whole of a child's scholastic career and not on an hour's examination. I hope that after August, 1970, this is what we shall be introducing. Finance will disappear

as an interest, the power of privilege and the power of reports will be abolished. I am sorry that we have taken so long to move. I can understand that they should have been slower in Edinburgh—they have always been slow to move—but I am disappointed that Glasgow has not acted more quickly. Some authorities fixed dates and they did not wait a year or 18 months. They did it in a few months. We took the decision and abolished such schools within a few months.
There was no chaos, no school strike, no parental disorders, no protest meetings. Even some of the Conservatives on the councils voted for this policy; they were far-sighted enough to realise that the inevitability of development within society would mean that children in our schools should be offered real equality of opportunity so that they could play their part, mentally and physically, in being educated to become future successful citizens. In essence that is the basis of getting rid of privilege and yet another social inequality.
I am amazed to hear some hon. Members opposite accusing my right hon. Friend of interfering with the rights of local authorities. They should be the last to do this. I vividly recall in the 1950s suggesting that we should have an experiment in comprehensive education in the new town of East Kilbride. This was rejected by the then Secretary of State for Scotland as being totally unacceptable. These were the dictators and autocrats of the 1950s, yet they complain today, although my right hon. Friend has a clear mandate on this issue.
In addition, he pays roughly 50 per cent. of the cost of education. In that event he should have some say in the provision of education. That is what he is doing, and my only regret is that he is not doing it quickly enough. It will give me the greatest pleasure to strike another blow for the elimination of privilege from our schools in the Lobby this evening.

Earl of Dalkeith: As many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in this debate, I shall be very brief and confine my remarks to one main point. I have always had a sneaking admiration for the way in which the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) always goes down with all


guns firing. I was particularly interested by his seated comment about how he has been advocating the principle involved here for half a century. This is typical of the attitude of the Labour Party to this problem. It is an old doctrine which they adopted many years ago, and they are stuck with it. It is one of the few pledges which they are redeeming, it is a pity that they could not have chosen some better ones.
My one point about the timing of this operation relates to the question of who should decide a matter of this kind.
I am convinced this is a matter for local decision, yet the octopus of Whitehall will not release its stranglehold, even in this quite legitimate field of self-determination. If devolution is to mean anything at all I would have thought that this was a case where the people involved should be allowed to make up their own minds. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, South (Mr. Dewar) expressing a certain amount of sympathy for this point of view.
The choice of August, 1970 is a matter of the greatest regret. It is clear that the Government have selected this so as to jump two guns. They are trying to jump the gun of the next General Election, so as to implement this as a dying act before they are thrown out—as they know that the decision will be reversed—and they are also trying to jump the gun of the Royal Commission's Report on local government. They know perfectly well that there may be a recommendation for larger local authority units and it would be impossible to deny to such units the sort of decision-making involved here.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East tried to get out of his difficulty by saying that this was in the national interest. No phrase has been quite so overworked in the last few years as "the national interest". Almost any diabolical deed that the Government have chosen to do has been excused on the grounds that it is in the national interest. Resentment against this kind of treatment, the defiance of the right of people to express themselves and to have their opinions carry weight is something which was quite clearly shown last night in the local election results. There is no doubt about it that the people of Edinburgh

considered this point about the abolition of fee-paying schools very seriously.

Mr. Willis: They considered it so seriously that 30 per cent. of them did not even bother to vote.

Earl of Dalkeith: It was a sufficient number to show emphatically what sort of government they wanted. I regretted that more did not choose to vote.
It seems almost unbelievable that any intelligent body of men could so persistently defy local opinion in such a matter. I can only assume that it is only because they are hell-bent on their own destruction and are now performing the final contortionist act of hammering nails into their coffin, while lying inside it.

Mr. Alex Eadie: We have argued this in Committee, and I have a vested interest to some extent. The arguments so far have shown that we are not talking about privilege as such but about a few people who will have a privilege in education. We are talking about buying a senior secondary education. I have discovered that many people are so disgusted with the system of education in Edinburgh that they are moving into my constituency, where we abolished fee-paying, post-primary schools a long time ago. I am worried, because this creates pressures in my constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing an Amendment dealing with the timing of abolishing of fee-paying schools in Scotland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. Surely it is in order for my hon. Friend to argue that he will be relieved that in August, 1970, this pressure on Midlothian will be removed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Up to this point the hon. Gentleman has not referred to the Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Eadie: I will try to follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will deal with the Amendment by saying that pressures are being created. I had a discussion with a young professional man, an architect, living in the City of Edinburgh. In his case it was not a question of finance. He could afford to pay


for a fee-paying school, but because we had the system that within this type of post-primary education an I.Q. test is applied and probably only a child with an I.Q. of over 110 can win a place his children were not considered to have a sufficiently high I.Q. to win a place at that fee-paying school.
That young man was a sensible individual. His approach was to come into the area of a progressive local authority like Midlothian, where we do not operate the 11-plus or have any bars to post-primary education. This is relevant to the Amendment, because it relates to expenditure on education. There is talk about the brain drain, but when we operate fee-paying schools and the system of the 11-plus—or, in Scotland, 12-plus—this is probably the biggest brain drain which we have ever created.
I remember hon. Members opposite saying that their party stood for democracy of opportunity and aristocracy of achievement. How on earth, therefore, can they argue that in post-primary education we should not have a system which provides democracy of opportunity and aristocracy of achievement, when the system of their choice is based upon fee-paying schools and the taking of intelligence tests?
The Opposition lost their argument in Committee. Today, they have put forward an Amendment to try to argue the case again. The elections have demonstrated clearly that although they may have won on other issues, they have not won on the question of education. What perturbs me is that they are bringing this matter before the House afresh when their arguments have already been overwhelmingly defeated. I am convinced that when we go into the Division Lobby tonight, we will overwhelmingly defeat them again.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not intend to speak for long because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I regarded the Secretary of State's manner in introducing his Amendment as being entirely casual. He behaved as he would have done in his old days as a teacher in front of a class—"Do not ask questions. Take it from me that I am right".
We are discussing an important matter which has not been explained at all

clearly. I did not have the advantage of being in Committee, but as far as I am aware, it was not explained there why the date should be 1st August, 1970. Why was not this date in the Bill originally? If the Secretary of State has had a change of mind, why did he not tell us in Committee? Why wait until the last minute, on Report, to introduce an important date like this? We have been told from the benches opposite that it has nothing to do with the local elections If hon. Members opposite expect us to believe that, they expect us to believe anything.
I cannot help feeling that orginally the Secretary of State, rightly, did not want a date in the Bill, for proper administrative reasons, because he realised what difficulty it would cause. Had he wanted a fixed date, it would have been in the Bill earlier or introduced in Committee. Having seen, however, the extent to which opinion in the country is against him, he wishes to make sure of imposing his will on the country before a general election takes place. For purely party political reasons which have nothing to do with education, the right hon. Gentleman is speeding up the process which, originally, he thought should take time.
The process of integrating the schools, if it has to take place—I wish that it did not—is a complicated matter. It cannot be done quickly. There certainly is not time to do the job properly by 1st August, 1970. The Minister is as well aware of that as I am.
What is to happen, for example, to Hillhead High School? Only 25 per cent. of the pupils come from the immediate locality. The remaining 75 per cent. come from all round the place. There simply are not enough people living in that part of Glasgow, which is already densely populated with schools, to fill that school. What is to happen to it? We have had no guidance from the Secretary of State how it is to be dealt with. Is it to become a sixth-form school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) suggested, or will there be an immediate move by fee-paying parents into the area so that other people will have to move out, thereby putting up the price of housing and causing another social


revolution, which will be much more socially divisive, as happens in America?
All this is to happen before 1970. The Under-Secretary of State keeps scratching his nose. I wish that he would listen—because we want answers—and not just doodle or whatever he is doing. Has this been thought about? How can a change like this be carried out in so short a time?
Reference has been made to another school in my constituency, Notre Dame, which has an agreement with Glasgow Corporation to remain a selective fee-paying school for another 60 years or so. What is to happen there? If an exception is to be made for it—as it should; it should be able to carry on as at present—why make an exception only for that school? What about other schools in my constituency which are in exactly the same position? Is there to be an exception or not?

Mr. Hannan: Will the hon. Member make clear his attitude to Notre Dame school? Is he saying that the existing agreement should be continued?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes. I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, but I am speaking quickly because of the time. The existing situation should continue at Notre Dame, and at other similar selective schools in Glasgow should be allowed to continue. The whole thing is being rushed forward for political and not for educational reasons. Surely, effect should be given to the views of local authorities, or does the Government's right hand not know what their left hand is doing?
Upstairs the other day, we had a debate on whether local authorities should be the final court of appeal in local planning matters. The Government argued strongly that they should and that the local authorities must be trusted in planning matters. On education apparently, they must not be trusted. The Secretary of State must tell them what to do.
The local authorities are trying to keep down their rate burden. They do not want this additional burden put upon them. If anything is wrong with education, it is a lack of money. The Government are deliberately doing something to reduce the flow of money into education. The cost of these school fees is

small, less than many people pay on cigarettes, and most people could well afford to pay them.
I tried to interrupt the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) during his speech, but he would not give way until somewhat later on a less important point concerning Scottish nationalism. The hon. Member referred to the right of the Government to interfere with the local authorities. We accept that Parliament must be supreme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.]—at the end of the day.
But is it right to interfere with the desire of parents to make sacrifices for their children? That is what it comes to. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South seemed to resent parents taking an interest in their children's progress. He was rather scathing about middle-class families taking an interest in their children and trying to produce excellence. He wishes to stop this before the new system is properly operating. The wise thing in this matter, when nobody knows whether the new conception of comprehensive schools will work well—

Mr. Dewar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that my argument was that, unfortunately, middle-class parents who take an interest in education are allowed to opt out. I should like to see their intelligent interest and energy channelled into the State sector of education so that the general level can be raised by their efforts in pressuring the Government.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman cannot even understand the basis of freedom. He talks about parents being allowed to opt out. If they wish to educate their children in that way and to make sacrifices in that way, why should they not be allowed to do so? This is the great divide between the hon. Gentleman and myself, and we shall not be able to resolve it in the remaining couple of minutes that I intend to take.
The wise thing in a situation such as this, when a new form of comprehensive education is being introduced, is not to move too quickly, not to bring the date forward unnecessarily soon for electoral reasons, which would seem to me the only reasons why it is being introduced at this last minute, but to compare the products of the comprehensive schools in the new towns, where there is nothing competing


with them, with those of the fee-paying schools in the existing old towns and slowly make a decision on the right thing to do instead of, at the eleventh hour, introducing for party political reasons this monstrous proposal to speed up a process which cannot be speeded up.

Mr. Hannan: Since the principle of the matter was discussed fully on Second Reading and in Committee, and since many of today's speeches seemed to me to be outside the Amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has been very diligent in ruling on this matter.

Mr. Hannan: I am glad to hear that. It gives me the assurance that I can speak for one and a quarter hours on the principle—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has not ruled that discussion of the principle was in order. It is in order to make incidental references to the principle in agreeing with or opposing the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: I do not wish to enter into a debate with the Chair, but the Amendment suggests that the date should be brought forward, and the principle has been touched on by other speakers.
I should like to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). It would seem a silly way for Members on the Government benches to proceed by making political capital out of an Amendment on a Bill which will have such dire effects on the population. The hon. Gentleman should not worry about the future of the Government. I do not think that he is worried about the Government's welfare. He is worried about the ending of what is known to be privilege.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) talked about the Government clinging to old principles. But the principle which we are considering is already on the Statute Book; it has been the practice in England and Wales for 34 years. The hon. Gentleman, who no doubt was moved to speak because of his interest in the Educational Institute of Scotland, will agree that the E.I.S. is without doubt in favour of the Bill and to

have the principle introduced in Scotland at as early a date as possible so that the same benefits may be enjoyed in Scotland as are enjoyed in England and Wales. The principle was introduced in the Education Act, 1944, not by a Socialist Government but by the present Lord Butler.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) introduced some tendentious evidence from a circular issued by the E.I.S. which dealt with school buildings rather than with the Bill. The E.I.S. Journal of 8th November last says:
It is odd, to say the least of it, if not downright shameful, to find a heated public argument going on in Scotland about a modest step towards equality in education which was achieved in England and Wales apparently without any fuss 34 years ago.
Later it says about the Bill:
This will simply reproduce in Scotland the position that already obtains in England where such powers were abolished by the Education Act, 1944. The only fee-paying schools left in England since that time have been the independent and the direct grant Schools".
Later it says that the problem of integrating fee-paying schools with local authority schools is difficult.
The convenors of the education committees in Glasgow and Edinburgh have made it clear that they will enter into talks on this matter. But the principle has been conceded. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has conceded the principle of fee paying. That is not the issue. The issue is selection and selective schools—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The issue is whether this proposal should come into operation on a certain date or some other date.

Mr. Hannan: I accept that, Mr. Speaker.
The number of young people staying on at school after 15 years of age is increasingly becoming a problem not only in this country but in other European countries. There are forecasts that the time may not be far away when a very large proportion of young people will stay on at school. In that event, the physical difficulties of accommodating children of that age must be solved. The earlier the necessary power is given to the Secretary of State, the better.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian), absolutely floored the Opposition on the principle of fee paying—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Under-Secretary of State floored them on the principle in Committee, he cannot floor them now.

Mr. Hannan: It is because my hon. Friend did that so admirably that I say that the sooner he has power to put these admirable principles into practice the happier I and my hon. Friends will be, and I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) that the debate on the principle involved here resulted in a victory for the Government. My impression was that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) flattened the Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Honours are now even.

Mr. Taylor: As the hon. Member for Maryhill said, this is a question of a date, and we are concerned with the mechanics. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government have given careful consideration to the mechanics of bringing forward the date.
In his excellent contribution my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) asked what had changed between the date of the Bill being published, on through the Committee stage, and now. Why is it that we did not have a date then, but we have one now? I think the House must know what has happened in the interval. Yesterday at the municipal elections in Glasgow and Edinburgh the Government were hammered, with this matter being a key issue. There has also been a disastrous slump in the Government's standing in Scotland. The result is that the Government know that unless they introduce this Amendment and get a decision on it before the next General Election there will not be another Socialist Government for at least a generation, and this issue will therefore die.
I believe that that is why this Amendment has been introduced. But whether that is so or not, if the Amendment is accepted the Government will find themselves faced with enormous practical difficulties, and I counsel the Minister to withdraw the Amendment until such time as he is able to appreciate the practical difficulties in which he will become involved.
If, as a result of abolishing fees by 1st August, 1970, we are faced with the introduction of comprehensive schools throughout the local authority areas, and if this results in a massive increase in local authority spending due to the provision of buses and other forms of transport to take children from one end of a city to the other, or from the centre of a city to the outlying areas, will the Government make good the increased expenditure? Because of the present burden on local rates, I believe that it would be unreasonable to bring in so quickly a provision which will have a substantial effect on the spending of local authorities as a result of bussing hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of children into our city centres to enable them to attend these schools. Will the Government foot the Bill?
If the Minister insists that before this proposed date local authorities must submit plans for comprehensive education, perhaps he will answer three questions. First, will he accept any form of selectivity in these schools? If Glasgow says that it cannot do this unless it has one, two, three, or perhaps four, non-fee-paying schools, will the Minister be flexible about this? Second, if Glasgow puts forward a proposal for schools which are not entirely territorial, but which cover much wider areas, will he consider such a proposal? Third, if Glasgow says that it accepts this proposal but it wants to have within its school accommodation for single-sex schools, will the Minister be flexible in his approach to that proposal?
The Minister said in Committee—and we were grateful for the assurance—that those who were in the schools now would be allowed to work their way through them. Will this concession apply to those attending the Glasgow fee-paying schools but who live outside the local authority area? Will they be allowed to continue at these schools? If they are in the primary sections of these schools, will


they be permitted to go into their secondary departments?
If the Government intend to bring the date forward, we must be told how the mechanics will work. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions, even if only by saying "Yes" or "No". Will he accept any form of selection? Will he accept a school which is non-territorial? Will he accept single-sex schools? What will be the position, legally and financially, of children who come to these schools from areas outside the local authority area? Will they be allowed to work their way through them?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot on this Amendment deal with that. We are dealing with whether it should be one date or another.

Mr. Taylor: This is a question of fees and outwith fees. Reference has been made to the abolition of fees paid in the normal way. What will be the position of outwith fees?
We cannot go into detail, but in his excellent speech the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)—and I know that he was speaking sincerely—said that the Government were entitled to fix the date at 1st August, 1970, in the same way as he had fixed a date for Lanarkshire when he played a prominent part on the local authority because it had a mandate for what it was doing. If there is one reason for postponing this date until at least 1971, it is that the local authorities directly concerned were given a clear mandate only yesterday. They were told that people wanted the kind of policies promoted by the Progressive Conservative Alliance. Our policy is to fight to the end for our own form of education, which is known to us, and is accepted by—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not drift back to the elections. I know how keen he is on them, but he must come to the date proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I have asked my questions, the Minister has heard them, and I hope that he will answer them.

Mr. MacArthur: I think that the House will agree that we have had a very useful

and reasonably wide-ranging debate on this question, and I hope that the House may before long be able to come to a conclusion.
Before making my speech may I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, and I am sure on behalf of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, too, welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) to the Opposition Front Bench. This is the first occasion on which my hon. Friend has spoken from this Front Bench, and he continues the distinguished tradition which he established on the Front Bench in Committee upstairs.
The proposal to write a definite date, 1st August, 1970, into the Bill is entirely new. We had not heard of this before. When he moved the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State suggested that it would be convenient to have a precise date in the Bill so that local authorities would know what the Government's intention was, so that they would know what was to happen to them and to their schools on a definite date.
The Government's intention was made known during the Second Reading debate in January. The Secretary of State made it clear then that fee-paying would be abolished by Order, to take effect in August, 1970. There was no suggestion then of an Amendment to alter the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said, forcefully as always, there was no suggestion during the Committee stage, which went on for weeks, that a specific date would be written into the Bill. Why, then, was it that only two weeks ago we saw this Amendment on the Notice Paper? Why was the Secretary of State overwhelmed by this sudden brainwave just two weeks ago?
I suggest that the reason for the Amendment is not only to jump the gun twice over, as my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) suggested, that is, jumping the gun of the General Election, and jumping the gun on local government reform, but to attempt to spike the guns of the next Government. The House will recall that we have pledged to restore to local authorities the right to charge fees at these schools, and I shall return to this in a few moments.
Clearly, the reason for the Amendment is to try to embarrass us by making it more difficult for us to honour our pledge. This cheap and disgraceful attempt to hamper the next Government is an abuse of power, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) so rightly said in his intervention. But it does not embarrass us on this side of the House in the least, as the House will shortly hear in detail.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: The hon. Member has given an assurance that the Conservatives will restore fee paying. Has he the permission of the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet to say that?

Mr MacArthur: If the hon. Member would be good enough to await the statement which I have indicated that I will make shortly, he will hear the answer to that question. I would not make a statement of that kind without full agreement.
We are also debating Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient if we divided once on the three Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member asked me, and I gave a half promise on the subject, but, on examining the Bill, I cannot allow a Division on either of those two Amendments. Once the first Amendment is carried, the other two fall.

Mr. MacArthur: I understand the point, Mr. Speaker, and I am obliged to you for considering it.
The other two Amendments are different in scope. Amendment No. 2 in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, proposes that the Order which would be introduced under the Clause as it stands should not take effect until two years after the passage of the Act. Our reason for making that proposition is to provide added protection for local authorities and for the parents of the children in these schools.
If the Prime Minister decides to go on with his goings on, he could continue—I am sorry to depress the House—until the spring of 1971. Our two-year period was carefully chosen to take us beyond the time of this, the Prime Minister's dream—and the country's nightmare. We certainly do not accept the principle of

the change, and our Amendment would be a way to avoid the change altogether. I say that because a Conservative Government would not be lunatic enough to abolish fee paying in these schools and totally to change the character of these excellent schools, as the Government propose to do. That is the difference between us and hon. Members opposite. The difference is that we are not wedded to this narrow and thoughtless political dogma. The difference is that this crazy change would not be forced on local authorities by a Conservative Government.
The debate has shown yet again that the Socialist Party is bound by dreary dogma in the questionable cause of a bogus egalitarianism. In moving the Amendment the Secretary of State said that when the Bill was enacted it was his intention to "press" local authorities for their proposals—a sinister word. He has already tried to beat local authorities to their knees to make them comply with the Government's instructions, whether they agreed with the Government or not. He said that he intended to press them further. I tremble when I think of what that pressure might involve.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) implied that all that would happen on 1st August, 1970, was that the fees themselves would be abolished but that for the moment the schools would continue unchanged in every other way. Perhaps that will be so on 2nd August, 1970, and 3rd August, 1970, but what will be the position in August, 1971, August, 1972, and the years thereafter? It is clear that the character of these schools will be totally changed if the Government have their way.
The Secretary of State said that he will press local authorities for their proposals. In his weak and ineffective replies to our questions in Committee, the Minister said that he expected local authorities to come forward with their proposals, but that they had not yet done so. But the local authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow have come forward already with their proposal—vigorously and vocally. Their proposal is, "Leave our schools alone". That is what they propose.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is drifting into the merits of the Clause. We are discussing whether the Clause shall come into operation in


August. 1970, or two years after the passing of the Act.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. The local authorities would cry, "Leave our schools alone on 1st August, 1970".
Many questions were asked in Committee about the difficulties which would face local authorities on 1st and 2nd August and thereafter, and they were not answered. Questions have been put again today. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) asked what the position would be of the Royal High School in Edinburgh. That is the kind of question which must be answered.
It is all very well for the Government to say that on 1st August fee paying will be abolished, but their intention is to go far beyond the abolition of fee paying. They expect the local authorities to change the character of these schools completely and to bring them within the comprehensive system. How do the Government expect local authorities to be able to carry out that instruction? How do they think that the Royal High School can become a territorial comprehensive school?
The Government are asking for the impossible. If they are requiring the local authority in Edinburgh to change the character of the Royal High School to remove this illusion of privilege and social divisiveness about which we have heard, I point out that they will not achieve their objective in that way. If they turn that High School into a territorial school, they will be making it more socially divisive and removing totally from the school the wide social mix which exists in it and in the other fee-paying schools under the present fee-paying system.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman says that certain things are impossible. A few minutes ago he said that the question was whether this action should be taken on 1st August, 1970. As he has confined his scope to that date, will he say whether these steps are impossible on 1st August, 1970?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I have advised the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire

(Mr. MacArthur) to confine his remarks to the Amendments.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) misses the point. What we propose should happen on 1st August, 1970 is that the schools should be left alone to carry on the fine contribution which they are making to the variety of education in Scotland. We have equivalent problems in Glasgow, some of which have been mentioned today. Some of my hon. Friends referred to the problem which confronts the Notre Dame School in Glasgow. What are they to do on 1st August? What sort of proposal can they make to the Government? The Government are asking the impossible.
I suggest to the Minister—and I put the suggestion in the form of a question—that he is placing that school and that local authority in a very difficult position. Reference was made in Committee to a contract drawn up between the corporation and the religious order which teaches in the Notre Dame School. The Minister was specifically asked what were the terms of that contract and how he expected the corporation unilaterally, at the Government's request, to break a contract of that kind. This question relates directly to 1st August, 1970, because an answer must be given to the local authority.
In Committee, after some days of questions, the Under-Secretary of State said:
I understand that there is some kind of agreement between the education authority and the trustees of the Convent of Notre Dame. I am not clear about the details of that legal agreement, but I make the same point about it as I have made in relation to other schools. If there are special difficulties in schools, I expect the education authority to let us know about them."—OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee; 18th February 1969, c. 283]
But, with respect, the Government have been apprised of this problem by us and the local authorities repeatedly and all that the hon. Gentleman can do is repeat in his parrot fashion, "I expect the local authorities to come forward with proposals". He is asking for the impossible and it is shameful that he should persist in this sort of argument.
I take a contrary view to that of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—

Mr. Willis: Thank goodness.

Mr. MacArthur: I believe that the quality of this proposal is quite the reverse of that which he described. I regard it as wrong, improper and socially unjust. If this change is made on 1st August, 1970, the disappearance of these schools will widen social divisions in education and weaken the varied character of education in Scotland. We oppose the Amendment also because it removes freedom of choice from parents—not from privileged people, as has been suggested, but from parents who cannot afford to send their children to independent fee-paying schools. The Government are removing choice not from the rich, who can look elsewhere, but from the many poorer parents who send their children to these schools—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is still talking on Clause 3, which is already part of the Bill. All that we are discussing is whether this provision shall come into operation on 1st August, 1970.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
If the Government persist in asking local authorities to produce impossible proposals by 1st August, 1970, they will deny those authorities the right which they should have to determine the shape of education in their areas. I warn the House that in this Amendment we see the beginning of an assault on freedom and independence in education.
I referred earlier to the pledge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) on Second Reading, which I repeated in Committee—that we would rescind any Order made under the Clause as it stands, abolishing the right of local authorities to charge fees in these schools. I wish to state now that, if the present Government succeed in their aim in this Amendment, the next Conservative Government will introduce the amending legislation which will then be necessary in order to restore to local authorities the right to charge fees if they wish to do so.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: We have heard, from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), the usual speech, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Unlike hon. Members opposite, I have had some impatience with the Government. In this matter of the abolition of the fee-paying schools, they have acted in a Hamlet-like fashion. Impressed by the opportunity for doing what needed to be done, they have not seized it. My only reluctance has been to support them in their original intention to bring forward the date by Order. I therefore entirely welcome their decision to make this action effective on 1st August, 1970.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have tried to attribute a political motivation to the Government's action, have tried to have the benefit of two arguments which are mutually incompatible and inconsistent. First, they have said that this is unpopular and therefore it is to be rushed through. They cite as evidence last night's results in the local government elections. But, at the same time, they say that, just before another General Election, we are bringing forward the Bill to prevent the Opposition from undoing it. If hon. Members opposite are right and this is unpopular with the electorate in Scotland, surely they will stand to benefit from this, if they are right in assuming that the election will follow immediately after. This is a bogus argument and has nothing to do with the issues.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that it is up to the Government to suggest what form of reorganisation will be necessary after the implementation of this Measure. On the other hand, he suggested that we should be censured for depriving local authorities of the right to decide their own fate in this matter. These arguments, too, are inconsistent. It is up to the local authorities to come forward with proper proposals to implement the principle which the Government have outlined. It is not that they have not been given time to do so. This principle has been a plank of Labour Party policy for years and it has been known for years that the Government intended to give legislative effect to it. Discussions have taken place, opportunities for representations have been given, and these opportunities have been cast carelessly aside by the very authorities he mentioned. Hon. Members opposite have sought to have the best of completely inconsistent arguments.
This firm date will help to concentrate the minds of those local authorities on


which we rely to bring forward a satisfactory and equitable solution to this outstanding problem, which has been the cause of dissatisfaction and heartfelt discontent in those areas with fee-paying schools. I ask hon. Members who have objected to the date: what kind of forward planning have these authorities already done? Surely in the light of the Government's declared intentions—this Government are not known for their pusillanimity, whatever else—they must have done some forward planning. Or do they prefer not to bring forward the planning because that would expose the utter weakness of their objections? It is now clear that the time has come to act.

Mr. Milan: The Amendments are comparatively narrow, but, as you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, they tend to merge with rather wider arguments involved in the proposition of the Clause for the abolition of fee-paying—now with a fixed date. I will not attempt, even if that were in order, to go over all the strands of this argument about fee-paying, because we considered them exhaustively in Committee. But the difficulty of answering, even the kind of points put by the Opposition to-day is that they still have a completely ambivalent attitude towards comprehensive education and the processes of selection.
It is their inability to bring themselves to firm conclusions about these matters which gives rise to the confusion that was demonstrated, for example, by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) and which was exposed so devastatingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). If only they would clear their minds about the basic issue, we might have a meaningful argument about comparatively minor matters concerning the precise date on which this decision should be made.
The confusion is not helped when we realise that, despite the high sounding views that we had even today from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) there are only two education authorities in Scotland involved in this—Glasgow and Edinburgh The hon. Gentleman's own education authority has no fee paying schools and

not the slightest intention of having any, whatever the next Conservative Government, if there is one, legislate about fee paying in local authority schools.
It is also remarkable that the hon. Gentleman has been able to say that the proposition that fee paying will be reintroduced has the support of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the English members of the Shadow Cabinet. It was an English Conservative Minister of Education, Lord Butler, who introduced similar legislation in 1944. The period of notice which he gave to the English local authorities was considerably less than that which we are giving to the Scottish local authorities in this legislation.

Mr. MacArthur: We went over all this in Committee. It is impossible to compare the Scottish position today with the English position some years back. What is critical is that two of the largest authorities in Scotland oppose the Government's policy utterly.

Mr. Millan: That adds nothing to what he has already said today, and what he said today added very little, in any event.
There is a simple reason for putting the date in the Bill. It is that the date has been announced already. It was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and there seems to be every argument for removing any possible uncertainty about the Government's intentions in this matter. The best way of doing that is to put the date in the Bill, and that is what we are doing by this Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is something dastardly in a Government frustrating the wishes of a future Government made up of hon. Members who are at present in opposition. Apart from the assumption in that argument that there will be a change of Government, which I think it is foolish to make, this Government and any other are perfectly entitled to produce certainty in their legislation and to say, "We have made this decision. We have debated it exhaustively. We want it to be a firm one and not one which may rest on the good will of any Government who may follow us". If hon. Gentlemen opposite ever form a Government they can introduce different legislation. But there is


no reason why we should not have absolute certainty in the Bill, and that is what we are doing by the Amendment.
In any case, the cost of the abolition of fees has been taken into account already in the recent rate support grant regulations and in the negotiations leading up to them. Therefore, the authorities concerned are compensated for the abolition of fees in the regulations on rate support grant which we have already put into operation.
There were a number of positively bizarre reasons produced by hon. Gentlemen opposite for deferring the date beyond 1st August, 1970. The most extraordinary was the proposition that we should do it because the Royal Commission on Local Government is sitting at the present time. The hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) said that the boundaries of local authorities in Scotland—indeed, she said, the boundaries of Scotland—would all be changed before 1st August, 1970.
I know that this Government act with great speed on the recommendations of Royal Commissions, but even this Government will not be able to change all the local authority boundaries in Scotland before 1st August, 1970. Some hon. Members opposite were wondering whether we should have the Royal Commission's Report before 1st August, 1970, let alone whether legislation would be put into effect.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The hon. Gentleman does me some injustice. I read an extract from the remit, which was to redraw the boundaries. I did not suggest that any legislation following that would be in force by 1st August, 1970. I merely said that it was relevant, which I believe it to be.

Mr. Millan: I do not think that it is relevant. In any event, the hon. Lady said what I have just attributed to her.
The argument which she drew from the Royal Commission situation does not stand consideration. From the arguments that we have heard coming from the Opposition benches on this Amendment, one would think that there has never been a case of fees being abolished in local education authority schools in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member

for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) demonstrated that it has been done in Lanarkshire over the years, in respect of a very large number of schools, It has been done in Glasgow. More recently, it has been done by the Renfrew-shire education authority with effect from the end of the current session. The hon. Lady seems unaware of this or has not taken it into account. Incidentally, Renfrewshire is not even Labour-controlled.
All these impossible practical difficulties have been overcome by Renfrew-shire, by Glasgow and by Lanarkshire in the past, and they will be overcome by the authorities concerned when this legislation is enacted.
That is the general answer to the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) about the situation at schools in Edinburgh. I have met the education authority in Edinburgh on more than one occasion. I asked its members at my first meeting with them whether they wished to discuss individual schools in Edinburgh to see if it was possible to integrate them into a comprehensive system. The then convener said that he had no intention of producing proposals to that end and that, if the Government wished to do this job, they would have to legislate. That is precisely what we have done.
Exactly the same position applies in Glasgow. I offered members of the Glasgow education authority the opportunity of discussing all the individual schools in detail. They were unwilling to do that, and the situation remains that, once the Bill is through, we shall in the first instance expect to receive proposals from the education authorities. We shall discuss the proposals with them. We shall discuss the practical problems involved and, if there are any which are difficult of solution, I hope that they will be dealt with sympathetically. If that has not got through to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), it is clearly understood by the education authorities concerned. They are expecting the abolition of fees on 1st August, 1970. They know the position, and nothing that we are doing today or have done in the Bill has surprised them. Therefore, the practical


difficulties that have been mentioned will not arise.
I commend the Amendment to the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 136.

Division No. 197.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Archer, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harper, Joseph
Padley, Walter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.


Barnett, Joel
Haseldine, Norman
Palmer, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Hazell, Bert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bence, Cyril
Heffer, Eric S.
Pardoe, John


Bessell, Peter
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Park, Trevor


Bishop, E. S.
Hooley, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Booth, Albert
Howie, W.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boston, Terence
Hoy, James
Pentland, Norman


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)


Boyden, James.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Buchan, Norman
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Chapman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Richard, Ivor


Coe, Denis
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Conlan, Bernard
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Ryan, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lawson, George
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Slater, Joseph


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Luard, Evan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dickens, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Symonds, J. B.


Dobson, Ray
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Driberg, Tom
MacDermot, Niall
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Tomney, Frank


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wallace, George


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitaker, Ben


Finch, Harold
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Freeson, Reginald
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Molloy, William
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Gardner, Tony
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grey, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Newens, Stan
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Neil McBride.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.






NOES


Astor, John
Black, Sir Cyril
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Bullus, Sir Eric


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brewis, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Carlisle, Mark


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Clark, Henry


Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clegg, Walter




Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Costain, A. P.
Hutch:son, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Currie, G. B. H.
Jopling, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Sharples, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'h'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Silvester, Frederick


Emery, Peter
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Foster, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McMaster, Stanley
Stodart, Anthony


Glover, Sir Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Grant, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wall, Patrick


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Heave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, A. W.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hawkins, Paul
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wright, Esmond


Hill, J. E. B.
Peel, John
Wylie, N. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.
Mr. Hector Munro.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Francis

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS,

under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on any hon. or right hon. Member to speak, I have to announce that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Members for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), nor have I accepted the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill).
This will not affect the debate in any way. Points which could be made on either the Amendment or the Instruction will be in order on the Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: This is a Private Bill promoted by the largest local authority in this country, a local authority which is sometimes rightly regarded as the prototype for the new type of regional authority which is likely to emerge from the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
I mention that in opening because I suggest that if we are to talk and think seriously about devolution of authority to regional governments we have, if we are to be honest with ourselves, to be prepared to look with sympathy and helpfulness when these great regional authorities come forward with proposals involving legislation.
I am not, of course, being so silly as to suggest that for that reason we should not look very closely at any legislative proposals they bring forward, but with this development of large regional bodies, if they are to be successful, a certain amount of co-operation and an attitude of basic helpfulness on the part of this House would be extremely helpful to their development.
The House, of course, is not being asked at this stage to give final approval to these proposals. This being a Private Bill, if the House in its wisdom decides to give it a Second Reading, it will then

go in the normal way in respect of Private Bills to one of our Select Committees sitting quasi-judicially hearing evidence and argument. All that is necessary at this stage is for the House to consider whether or not these proposals should be given the opportunity of being subjected to this normal procedure for Private Bills.
The time for final decision would come much more conveniently after the Bill has been to a Select Committee, after evidence from those who are affected, or think they might be affected, has been heard. After there has been the opportunity at leisure for a Select Committee to give the Bill the searching analysis which those of our colleagues who serve on these Committees unfailingly give, then it will be for the House with the advantage of the Committee's report, on the Third Reading, to look at what I accept are the very important issues it raises.
For that reason, and also for the reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, towards the end of the debate, with a view to dealing with points raised in it, I do not propose to detain the House at this stage at any great length.
But I think I owe it to the House to give a quick summary of one or two of the most important features of what, in many ways, is an extremely interesting essay in private legislation. The essence of the Bill is that it seeks to set up a Greater London Radio Authority appointed by the Greater London Council for the purpose of providing local radio programmes in and for Greater London. The Authority, it is proposed, should consist of a chairman, deputy chairman and not less than eight other members. It is the intention of Greater London Council before making those appointments to consult both the Government of the day and the London Boroughs Association about suitable individuals for this very responsible task.
Substantially, the proposed structure of the authority is modelled on that which Parliament approved some years ago in respect of Independent Television. There will be the Authority, with the G.L.C. in this case rather than the Postmaster-General, making the appointments, with its responsibilities for standards of programmes, and so on, and


the same system, broadly, of programme contractors competing for the right to send out their programmes. In terms of radio it proposes broadly to follow the Independent Television model.
There is one difference of importance. As the Greater London Council will be in this context in the position which the Postmaster-General holds in respect of Independent Television, the Bill provides that none of these powers shall be exercised unless and until an application has been made to the Postmaster-General, if I understand it aright under either Section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, or the old Telegraph Act 1869, for a licence.
The Authority would not have power to operate services without a licence from the Postmaster-General and compliance with any conditions which the Postmaster-General may see fit to attach. I hope that the Postmaster-General will accept that this is designed to meet the important consideration in respect of his responsibilities over control of wavelengths involved in our international responsibilities and his obligations as Postmaster-General. It is important at this stage to stress that the licence and the conditions under it are a condition precedent, so the Bill proposes, to the operation of the powers which are sought.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Greater London Council has any particular wavelength in mind? He will know that there is a great shortage and that we have the right to use only those wavelengths which are allocated to us by international Convention.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes. I was going to deal with wavelengths. I accept that this is a very important point.
It is hoped that it will be possible to operate in the medium band. This is a matter essentially for the Postmaster-General, and, of course, he would almost certainly lay down in his licence which particular bands would be available. Given the fact that the stations will be of relatively lower power, as they will be designed to serve only the Greater London area, it appears that there are bands available, perhaps somewhere in the neighbourhood of 194 or 202 which could be used for this purpose. This is a point for the Postmaster-General after

the Bill has become law and when a submission is made for a licence.
Some thought has been given to the matter although Greater London Council would not claim to be technical experts in it. Those experts, of course, are in the Post Office. I am sure that the House would wish to show proper respect for them in that capacity.
Subject to this, the final control being with the Postmaster-General, it follows the model set up for Independent Television. I should have thought it difficult to argue that a system which works in respect of Independent Television could not equally work in the allied field of radio. I do not, of course, overlook in saying that that the original Act dealing with independent television was a matter of acute controversy in this House. I am inclined, however, to think that that controversy has very much died down.
The present Government have operated that legislation for the last four-and-a-half years, which would seem to suggest that they have found it not unsatisfactory. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer availed himself of it to increase in his Budget the levy payments on advertising revenue—they were originally worked out when I was at the Treasury—and, I have no doubt, found it very helpful to get these further revenues to tap. Therefore, I hope that I am not raising any general issue of controversy when I say that the machinery which has been proved in the field of television is being used as the model, with this one exception, and some minor ones, for the scheme proposed, after a good deal of thought, in the Bill.
I do not need to spend time in arguing the theme about local radio generally. I think that this is generally accepted in Britain. It is generally accepted that interest in local affairs and in local government, which we must all admit is not in many parts of the country as intense as we should like it to be, will be stimulated, and that local feeling, local patriotism, local interests, would be well served by local radio.
In respect of London, there is the very special point of the significance of traffic problems and the need to deal with them quickly which makes a medium of quick communication throughout the London area to citizens generally of very considerable value. There is this additional factor,


therefore, which makes local radio in London of very particular importance.
I must face the point—I come to it now—that this proposal differs from the experiment which the Postmaster-General is conducting in, I think I am right in saying, eight provincial cities, in respect of the method of financing. The proposal here is that the expenses of operation should be ultimately financed out of advertising revenue. I do not want to detain the House by a long doctrinal argument about whether sound radio should in general be financed out of advertising. It is a matter on which opinions differ. I do not think that it is necessary to argue the general case this evening.
I would only say, in passing, that I myself have never been quite able to see why, if advertising is a proper financial support for television, it is an improper one for radio; or, indeed, to see why if advertising is a proper financial support for the Press, including all the most serious journals—The Times, the Economist, and the rest of them—it should be improper support for radio broadcasting. I do not need to argue that general case which, I think, in any case is inappropriate to private legislation.
The circumstances of London are special, in view of the very large area and the very high concentration of population in it, the obviously high cost compared with services in a provincial area of providing such a service, and also, if one is considering alternative means of finance, the high level—touching a sore point—of London rates and the undesirability of adding to them. Therefore, I am not asking the Postmaster-General to swallow his principles or his general argument, though I notice that his White Paper does not rule out advertising as a means of support. It is admirably fair and judicial on the point.
I am asking the House to consider simply this proposal as private legislation in respect of London, in respect of which, after a good deal of thought, this method of financing is suggested. Whatever the Postmaster-General's own views, may it not be the case that alongside his present experiment in the provinces on another basis of financing it would be a very useful experiment to see how we got on in London on this basis so

that a comparison between the two methods of financing to see which were the advantages and which the disadvantages would in due course become possible?
There is no doubt but that there is a real demand for a service of this sort, apart from the practical points I have mentioned, such as traffic management. Radio Caroline and the other illegal activities have at least indicated that there is a very strong demand for musical programmes. The House will also want to weigh the fact that the elected representatives in London in local government have decided that this is the way that they, as elected representatives of the locality, would like to see this service provided.
I know that the Press has some apprehensions from the point of view of advertising revenue. I have the greatest regard for the local Press, particularly in London, and especially because we are very well served in this respect in my constituency. But I do not believe that the Press stands to suffer from this. Nor is this view universal in the journalistic world. Indeed, as I understand, both evening and local newspapers in London are very interested in the opportunity of participation in this service.
There is something complementary between the mass of small advertisements which are carried in, and which are the main source of revenue of, the local newspapers and the totally different type of advertisement, designed for a wide public on a very short-time basis, which is alone suitable for radio. There is a great deal to be said for the view that local radio, by stimulating interest in local news, will stimulate the demand for local newspapers and so help them, both directly on their circulation and indirectly in respect of their advertising.
I leave it with the House that this is not intended to be anything but helpful in respect of the local Press, and that the Greater London Council would take it very much amiss if it thought that any damage would result. Indeed, it seems that the contrary will be the case.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the very experienced view of the Director of the Newspaper Society as to the effect on local newspapers?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, and I have also considered the contrary views put forward on behalf of the Society of British Advertisers. This is a technical and expert matter. My experience has taught me that technical and expert opinions are apt to differ. I have already conceded that there are contrary views. It at least comes to this, that the evidence is very far from being one way on the matter. I will leave that aspect of it there.
There is provision, quite properly, for the Greater London Council to obtain some of the proceeds after the expenses of the Authority have been met. It is intended and desired to use these for purposes for which finance otherwise might well not be forthcoming in connection with the council's ever-increasing concern with patronage of the arts—the need and desirability of helping young painters and encouraging young and progressive artistic developments. There is a wish to use the proceeds from this source for this purpose to an extent which perhaps might not be proper if it were placed upon the rates.
You, Mr. Speaker, have indicated that you are not calling the reasoned Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill). I might, however, just refer to the question of religious minorities. It is intended that the Authority should set up a religious advisory committee, whose job would be to ensure that all religions of any considerable following, or even quite small following, should get their proper share in representation. Certainly, a high degree of religious tolerance is the wish of the Greater London Council, as I am sure it would be of the House. The Bill contains provisions on the lines of the Television Act for maintaining standards of propriety, decency and tolerance, and I hope that the House will think they are adequate. If it does pot so think, they can well be improved in Committee.
This is a serious proposal, put forward by a great local authority. The question for the House is—is this a matter which should, having been carefully thought out and presented to the House by the greatest local authority in the country, be given the proper treatment for a Private Bill—consideration by one of our Select Committees? I hope

that the House will come to the conclusion that that is the right procedure and that we should reserve our own final decisions until, as the result of the report of one of our Select Committees, we are better informed than we are tonight.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, as it can see, many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I hope that speeches will be reasonably brief.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Contrary to the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I believe that if it were enacted this Measure would have a most serious effect on local weekly newspapers. It is, therefore, perhaps appropriate if I declare a very indirect interest as a newspaperman, although it is many years since I was financially engaged in any way with local weekly newspapers and I have never had any financial connection with weekly newspapers in the Greater London area.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should let the Bill proceed through the normal stages, but I do not take that view. It is a thoroughly bad Bill which should not be given the dignity of death by a thousand cuts in Committee, but should be snuffed out at 10 o'clock tonight in the Division Lobby.
The motive force for the Bill is not that of providing a wide variety of entertainment, information or culture for Londoners, but of providing private profit for a small number of individuals who will package rubbishy entertainment for the people of London. That is why the Bill commands so much support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is a long time since the traditions of service to the community and noblesse oblige fled from the benches opposite. They fled with the influx of what a noble Lord has described as the hard-faced men who now dominate the Conservative Party. That is what the Bill is all about. It is an attempt to make private profit for a small number of individuals.
If the Bill became an Act, the consequences would be as follows. First, it would implant the kiss of death on a number of local newspapers in London


because their advertising would be drained off to the new medium. This would reduce the sources of news about local affairs, and have a most unhappy effect on local democracy. There are already far too few local newspapers in the Greater London area; some boroughs have only one. The result of the Bill's being passed would be that those members would be reduced still more drastically, and the public life of the Londoner would in consequence be made much worse.
The second ill-effect I see from the passage of the Bill would be that it would open the door to other councils dominated by the same sort of people as now dominate the Greater London Council, and we should have a number of similar Measures, with disastrous results all over the land. That would threaten much of our local and provincial Press, to which some hon. Gentlemen opposite pay lip service when it pleases them and when they think that it is in their political interests to do so. It is recognised both by the Newspaper Society, which represents the newspaper owners, and by the National Union of Journalists, that this would happen, because the sources of advertising are not inexhaustible. It is impossible for us to have a vibrant local Press and local commercial radio. One can have one or the other, but certainly not both.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that he did not think the local newspapers need worry about advertising, but did not produce any facts to substantiate that argument.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been to America, but there he would find very strong local radio and a very strong local Press as well.

Mr. Roebuck: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's point shortly. I was about to advance to it and give the House some facts about advertising.
At present, 42 per cent. of the advertising revenue in this country goes to the newspaper Press and 23 per cent. to magazines, making 65 per cent. Of the rest, television takes 25 per cent. and posters 8 per cent., and 1 per cent. goes to Radio Luxembourg and 1 per cent. to the cinemas. If we are to have commercial

radio it is clear to me that there must be a switch of some of that advertising revenue from newspapers to the wireless.
In Japan, 5 per cent. of all advertising is taken by commercial radio. In Australia, the figure is 10 per cent., and in the United States the wireless takes 9 per cent. If there were a switch of that nature in this country many local newspapers which at present only just manage to exist would go out of existence. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman talking about the participation of some newspapers in schemes like this. It is clear that not all could participate, and even those which did would not be recompensed for the amount of advertising they would lose under this sort of Measure. If the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that, I suggest that he should talk to some of the people in the Newspaper Society about it.
No one suggests, I hope, that local radio does not have a most important part to play in the life of the community. I believe that it does, because by local radio a new lease of life can be given to many community activities such as amateur dramatics and choirs. But it can never be a substitute for the local weekly newspaper covering local events, particularly council affairs, in great depth. The news bulletin, which one presumes there would be on local radio under this Bill, would be a fleeting thing; it would be ephemeral. People would listen and perhaps forget; but they have their local weekly newspaper in the house all week, and they can refer to it and talk about it to their friends. If the local newspaper went out of existence in exchange for this sort of medium, the public would suffer greatly.
If local radio were established by commercial interests I cannot see those interests wanting to foster and sponsor such things as local dramatic society performances and local choirs. They would not want that sort of thing at all. They would want a packaged, canned, saccharin sort of product from the United States.
Therefore, I believe that the right way to proceed with local radio is along the lines of the experiments now being conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation, in which my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General takes such a keen


interest. These experiments are going on in many places, including Brighton, Merseyside, Sheffield and Leeds, with the active co-operation of the local Press. The indications are that the experiments are very successful. These services, which are complementary to those of the local Press, are no threat to the Press because they do not drain away advertising revenue. The experiments are backed by both the Newspaper Society and the National Union of Journalists.
I wonder why there is such haste by the Greater London Council to produce such a Bill now. Would not it have been far wiser to wait until we could evalauate these experiments? Possibly the Conservatives are in such a great hurry because they think that they will lose the next council elections in Greater London, and want to get the Bill on to the Statute Book beforehand. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may wish to advance other reasons.
You have asked for short speeches, Mr. Speaker, so I conclude by saying that I believe that under the Bill the public at large would get no benefit, but that there is a distinct possibility of fortunes being made by a small number of people. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends and right-minded hon. Members opposite to join me in the Division Lobby later to defeat the Measure, which I believe is obnoxious and harms the public interest.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Weatherill: We have listened to a rather hysterical outburst from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). One wonders how out of touch people can be. Evidently he does not remember the outcry aroused as a result of the closing down of the so-called pirate radio stations. They proved the need for and popularity of services other than those provided by the B.B.C.
I have not heard, certainly in my part of the world, that local newspapers oppose the scheme in any way. Indeed, my understanding is that at least two major London newspapers are strongly in favour of the Bill.
You have allowed me, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the Instruction which I put down and, since the point is a narrow one, I can accede to your request that

speeches be brief. I do not wish the House to take it from my having put down the Instruction that I am in any way opposed to the Bill. I strongly support it. In my view, it is exceedingly important that our capital city should have a radio station, or two radio stations, of its own. It is high time that this happened. I take comfort from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said about the Advisory Committee on Religious Broadcasting, and it is about that that I shall now speak.
The eight experimental stations which have already been set up have proved popular. They provide a service to the communities which they cover, and they fill a gap which, inevitably, the national networks cannot fill. The great advantage of local radio is that it engenders a kind of community spirit, and it can and does cater for minority interests and groups. In putting down my Instruction, I had in mind the minority religious interests.
In starting a new venture, we have a new opportunity to interpret the "main stream" theme of policy which was laid down about 50 years ago in circumstances very different from today. In paragraph 282, the Pilkington Committee said of this policy:
The concept provides, in our view, a useful practical device; but there is a risk that it will be too narrowly interpreted. Nor can we ignore the fact that the question of what churches are in the 'main stream' is determined by the B.B.C., and by the I.T.A., after consultation with the C.R.A.C. This leads to the anomaly that responsibility for recommending the continued exclusion of churches seeking admission to the 'main stream' rests with representatives of those churches already included.
In other words, in this narrow field we have a kind of monopoly situation.
We live now in a different kind of age in which many new religions and religious beliefs have grown up. Therefore, I hope that if the Bill goes forward to the Select Committee and is ultimately passed time will be found in religious programmes not only for the old "main stream" churches but also for large minorities such as the Jews and the newer churches—I use the word in its broadest sense—such groups as the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and, in particular, perhaps, the Christian Scientists who one might almost


say form a kind of main stream church nowadays, with about 3,000 churches all over the world and an internationally famous and respected newspaper. If the Bill is passed, the Christian Scientists would have 70 or 80 churches within the area which it would cover.
My object, therefore, is to urge that we widen the interpretation of the theme of "main stream" churches, including the newer religions and beliefs and also, since London is such a cosmopolitan city, religions which are much older even than Christianity—Hinduism, Buddhism and Mahommedanism. At a time when we are seeking to create harmony, a better understanding of one another's religious beliefs and religions would go a long way to help.
We all believe in choice. In my view, it should go beyond purely material things. I recognise that the point I make is narrow, but I believe it to be important, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Terence Boston: I was sorry that in an otherwise characteristically moderate speech the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill) saw fit to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) for his passionate speech. My hon. Friend feels passionately on this matter. It is no bad thing to feel passionately and to express oneself passionately on some subjects. I noted also the moderate tone in which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) spoke in opening the debate, a bit deceptively moderate, I thought, because in its very moderation it avoided, for reasons which he explained, the central issue regarding the establishment of local radio stations, whether commercial or non-commercial. For a reason which I shall develop in a moment, I regard this as an issue which cannot be avoided, even though we are dealing here with one specific proposal relating to one part of the country.
I am one of the group of hon. Members who have joined in pressing for local radio stations. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it is now widely accepted that local broadcasting has a considerable part to play. I share

his view. I am certain that it has. Yet this development has taken place over a comparatively short time. In a lot of the evidence presented to the Pilkington Committee it was said that there was not much support in various parts of the country for the idea of local broadcasting. Those of us who have for a long time felt, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman has, that local broadcasting could play a useful part both in broadcasting developments and in serving the community sometimes forget that there was in the past that tendency not to regard it as a popular move.
However, the last few years, and the past 18 months in particular, have shown that once one starts some form of venture of this kind one begins to see what the response really is. There has been a very real response to the local broadcasting experiments to which my hon. Friend referred. I was delighted when this Government decided to give the B.B.C. the go-ahead for the local radio experiment instituted in November, 1967. Perhaps I should declare an interest here—not a financial one I hasten to add—in that I worked for the B.B.C. for some time.
The eight local radio stations set up since November, 1967, in various parts of the country have already had considerable success. There is no doubt that the case for local radio stations has been well and truly established. It was suggested that some before they were set up that they would deal solely in news bulletins and that one would have endless news throughout the day. In fact, these eight stations have demonstrated that they can produce a great variety of programme material, gathering in people to participate on a whole range of different forms of entertainment and topic.
It is clear from a recent speech by Lord Hill of Luton, Chairman of the B.B.C. Board of Governors—whose views will surely appeal to hon. Members opposite—that the response has been very good He said:
One of the most encouraging aspects of the local radio experiment is the lively reaction it has provoked from audience. In the local stations the telephone is never silent and the post is always heavy.
Better still, the door is constantly being pushed open by listeners coming to express their views over the air about some current local controversy.


Lord Hill was referring to one of the most successful stations, Radio Leeds, which has shown outstanding enterprise in the organisation of its programmes. One of the most significant things about the response to these local stations has been the considerable measure of response from the young as well as from older people.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: But the response which the hon. Gentleman rightly describes can only come from people who happen to have V.H.F. sets.

Mr. Boston: That is the case at the moment, but I do not want now to go into the question of wavelength problems, which are considerable. What has emerged since local stations were established—and this is a point which we must bear in mind—is the substantial growth in the purchases of V.H.F. sets.
The station at Leeds has, in addition to its response from others, been having a substantial response from young people. Before these stations were established the sceptics were saying that they would not fulfil a need for the younger people. This has been amply demonstrated as not true, particularly in the experiment which Radio Leeds ran only a few weeks ago in handing over to teenagers in the city the running of the station on a particular occasion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East mentioned, the local broadcasting experiment being carried out by the B.B.C. is to be evaluated and we expect that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will be making a statement about the outcome in due course. Then will be the time to decide the whole future of local sound stations. What are we being asked to do in this Bill, however? This is where the right hon. Gentleman narrowed his argument too greatly. We are being asked to deal with London in isolation, and this in itself poses very big questions. If we are to set up local broadcasting at all, we have to do it for the country as a whole, dealing with the whole principle, including whether or not we set it up on a commercial or non-commercial basis or as a mixture of the two. It also poses the question of how many stations.
There have been one or two remarkable suggestions, notably by the Shadow

Postmaster-General—not even now taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—for 100 commercial stations. We would need to know in which places or areas these stations would be set up. There would be the problem to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has alluded—that of wavelengths, which is a very important point. There is also the whole question of the sources of finance. Again, there are the matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East referred—the position of the local Press and of how the stations would be made publicly accountable.
It would be quite wrong to deal with this important development in broadcasting in only one part of the country in isolation. Further—and here I may offend some of my hon. Friends from London constituencies, although I hope not—I think that it would be far better, once we start establishing local broadcasting stations on a permanent basis, to begin with other parts of the country than London.
London has the benefit already of a great many things which other centres do not have in the form of entertainment. A lot of the existing radio and television programmes are geared to this part of the country, and there is no reason why not, since it contains one-sixth of the population. But Londoners can already enjoy a variety of things and it would, therefore, be better, once we start establishing permanent stations, to start building them in other parts of the country. I am doubtful, at this early stage at least, whether a London radio station would be a good thing, because London is more of a region than a locality. I doubt whether, at the moment, London as a whole is really suitable for a local radio station.
The Bill contains some reference to the possibility of more than one programme being transmitted, although there is a useful provision which would avoid conflict. What would be unfortunate would be a proposal for a whole series of radio stations serving different localities in London. Only limited resources are available for the country as a whole to devote to any particular venture, of which the proposal for London radio is just part. To set up local broadcasting in meaningful terms for London would mean a series of stations, and


that would involve giving London a disproportionate amount of the resources available. There may be a case later on for establishing a station or stations in London but not at first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East referred to the question of whether there should be a commercial basis for local radio. Far too many people are apt to give the impression that if local radio were to be set up on a commercial basis the public would be getting it free of charge. A lot of humbug and hypocrisy is spoken on this point. Of course the listeners would be paying for it just as they would if we set up public service broadcasting. They would be paying for it through the goods they bought because of the cost of advertising, which would be increased. This point should be made clear to the public.
My hon. Friend also referred to the views of the local newspapers. I share his fears that commercial radio would undoubtedly syphon off advertising revenue. The Press is not in a very strong financial position and there is no doubt that the limited amount of advertising revenue available in the localities would largely be syphoned off by local radio stations operating on a commercial basis. The bulk of the evidence given by the local Press interests to the Pilkington Committee was against the setting-up of local commercial stations.
One of the pieces of evidence, given as it happens by a director of a newspaper in my constituency, the late W. R. H. Coleman, a director of Walter J. Cole Limited, was:
Such stations would directly compete with 'local' newspapers for their revenue with the possibility of casualties on both sides.…
Any diminution of revenue would result—and has already resulted in the case of the many newspapers which have closed down—in large scale unemployment, since the size of newspapers is directly related to the quantity of advertising.
… since the B.B.C. could possibly improve the present regional services by the establishment of a limited number of additional stations, I believe most 'local' newspapers would be content to give their support to this, subject to a review after five years. I do.
That is just one quote from the many pieces of evidence submitted to the Pilkington Committee.
It is significant that more recently local newspaper interests have not changed

their views as a whole. It is worth giving in some detail the statement made by Mr. William G. Ridd, a director of the Newspaper Society, when he said in a letter to the Financial Times on 1st January:
According to an economic survey of 108 provincial newspaper companies conducted for the Newspaper Society by independent accountants, 20 per cent. of the companies surveyed would have made a loss (before tax) if those companies had lost 10 per cent. of their advertising revenue. … No uncertainty about that. It is conservative to estimate a mere loss of 10 per cent. advertising revenue from the introduction of a competitive medium in the form of commercial local radio. …
The Newspaper Society does not retract from its long-held view that the B.B.C. should continue to conduct local radio.
That is an authoritative view from local newspaper interests.
Another important matter is that of local authority control. There is no doubt that many of us would feel that local authorities should play a part in the running of local stations if they were set up and in the contributions being made to them. But it would be a dangerous departure to put the whole of the control into the hands of local authorities. As is clear from the Bill, a local authority would have the ultimate sanction, because Clause 3 and the Schedule provide for the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairman and other members by the authority. This would be a powerful position for local authorities in this influential medium. While one would hope that local authorities will play a part when local broadcasting stations are set up on a permanent basis, it would be a great mistake if local authorities were to have the overall control.
I come finally to the running of the stations themselves. This is a sensitive medium, and I mean "sensitive" in political terms. Over the years the B.B.C. and, more recently, the I.T.A. have established a whole series of safeguards and procedures for making sure that programmes are balanced politically, both in terms of subject matter and content and participants. If we were to have a multiplicity of commercial stations all over the country, it would be difficult to see that each station at all times maintained a careful political balance. For that reason, I would much prefer local broadcasting stations, when


they are set up, to be set up under the aegis of the B.B.C.., so that they can have the built-in safeguarding procedure which the B.B.C. has established over the years.
For the reasons I have given, I believe that it would be wrong to consider this part of the country in isolation, and I therefore hope that the Bill will be rejected. However, I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend a little later in the year, and I hope that he will allow the B.B.C. to go ahead with permanent local stations.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: I begin by declaring an interest in that I am employed by an advertising agency, but in that respect I have no financial interest in the Bill, because we are specifically excluded from taking any part in the authority which may be set up. It may be useful for me to refer to the advertising side of the Bill, because I have been impressed by the completely wrong interpretation of the way in which the Bill would affect radio, television and the Press which has been inferred by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck).
They have both described a situation envisaging a sort of static world of advertising, a sort of static activity in which we use simply the media to which we have become accustomed. This is a false interpretation. Advertising has traditionally extended, and I hope will continue to extend itself, into new media as they become available. Provided it conducts itself properly, there is nothing but advantage to the public in its extension in that way. Both hon. Members fell into the fallacy of attributing to the introduction of new media trends which would have continued in any case.
For example, most of us would regret the demise of general interest magazines like the old Picture Post. It died after the introduction of independent television, but it would be unwise to attribute that demise to the introduction of independent television. The circulation figures for the magazine before the introduction of independent television show that between 1949 and 1956 its readership fell from 9·6 million to 5 million. The hon. Memmer for Faversham quoted figures in

connection with local papers just balanced between profitability and loss. I wonder whether he could take those figures and give a reasonable interpretation of what is to happen to those newspapers with or without the introduction of commercial radio.
Unfortunately, some of the very small local newspapers will inevitably decline, but the introduction of local commercial radio will not accelerate that decline. The sort of advertising revenue of which we are talking for Greater London radio is likely to be less than that already creamed off the market when Radio Caroline and Radio London were at work, and it would be difficult to show that more local newspapers were killed as a result of the introduction of those radio programmes.

Mr. William Molloy: Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that those radio stations were cheating, that they cheated those who provided the music by making no contribution to them, as the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. regularly do? That was the real crime of the pirates.

Mr. Silvester: I am not discussing the crime of the pirates. All I am saying is that the total revenue devoted, perhaps improperly, to succouring the pirates was not responsible for the killing of any local newspapers.
I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East that the effect on local newspapers is the most important aspect of the matter. The figures for regional newspapers show that they held a 20 per cent. share of total advertising revenue over the last seven years, and they have held this share at a time when advertising revenues have been increasing, so that the total of advertising revenue available to them has increased from £44 million to £87 million. About £40 million of this comes from classified advertising.
I do not believe, and I doubt whether many hon. Members believe, that the local radio station will take a predominant share of that advertising. If there is a danger to this market, and the figures bear this out, it comes not from local radio but from the highly specialised development of trade and technical magazines. The growth in the share of classified advertising is particularly marked


here. That arises because there is an increased demand for specialisation. This Bill proposes that there should be one or two radio stations to cover the whole of London, and I do not believe that these will be a contender for this advertising. Where local newspapers will be most vulnerable is in display advertising, which accounts for just about the other half of their income.
Here again, in the last few years they have held their share. Their share declined last year, as did their total income, but that was primarily the result of the squeeze which hit advertising as a whole in 1967. Taking the share of the gross national product which has been taken by advertising, it has been growing from 1957 up to 1966. It fell back in 1964 but that hit all newspapers, not only local ones.
There is some evidence from what happened after the introduction of Independent Television that the fears which had been expressed then were not justified. As a result of the increase in media available there has been an increase in the total amount of advertising placed. I am not saying that one or two specific newspapers in specific areas will not go under. They may well do, but not because of anything arising from this Bill. It is possible to envisage a campaign which would use local radio in London for a chain of stores, for example, operating in the area, and which would also require to be backed up by advertising for a specific local store in the local newspaper.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) was saying, that it is too big, the danger to local newspapers would come if the area became too narrow. Then there would be a real chance of local newspapers suffering. It is for this reason that I urge this House to accept this Bill in respect of the Greater London Council. In Greater London the situation is totally different from towns operating under the present B.B.C. scheme. There is a very large area, providing totally different circumstances. It would provide an opportunity to see whether there is a really viable case for a commercial radio station over a substantial area. The hon. Member for Faversham said that we should not start

in London because it is not fair. There are a lot of things going on in London. Why should London have all the joy? This is a deplorable attitude. I am not saying that we can do only this now, and something else perhaps a few years later. I want to see the thing moving.
I have no objection to the eight stations continuing if they are a success, and the reports I have heard are that they are a whale of a success. By all means let them go on, but I cannot see that the argument should extend to the stifling of this opportunity which the Greater London Council wishes to create.
I have spoken a lot about local papers, but we ought also to consider the local population. It is common ground in this House that the need for local radio is well-established. The sort of flair which was developed by the iniquitous pirates in commercial radio was also well recognised. It has certainly been adopted, to some extent, by Radio 1. At my by-election I had a candidate who stood solely on the grounds of "Let's have pop pirate radio".

Mr. Molloy: What happened to him?

Mr. Silvester: He lost his deposit, but that was only because I had the farsightedness to support him in that. We have obviously come a long way since the debates in the House on the Television Act, 1964, when someone said that the Bill was the enemy of a reasonable culture in broadcasting and television. I do not think that anyone believes that commercialism has that effect. The introduction of advertising clearly has to be very carefully controlled. At least three Clauses in the Bill are devoted to the careful control of advertising and of the programmes. This is a reasonable way of going about it.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East should not use emotive terms like "packaged canned stuff from America". If he reads the Bill he will see that there is a provision in it for the adequate use of British material.
I have, therefore, three reasons for supporting the Bill. The first is because a great authority, properly elected, even if hon. Members opposite do not like it, wants to try an experiment which will harm no one. That is a perfectly laudable activity for a local authority. Secondly, it is providing a service which


the public clearly wants and one which is likely to be provided more slowly if we leave it to the B.B.C. and local authority-supported stations. The third reason, and it is the least of my reasons, is that it may provide revenue which could be used for the arts and local bodies. It is the least of the reasons, because I do not think that the sums involved will be very substantial.
For these reasons, I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) upon a courtesly delivered speech, and I must also congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I know that when he wishes he can deliver a speech in a most ferocious and thrusting fashion. It usually means, when he delivers his arguments in that way, that he is very confident about what he is saying. This evening he was very beguiling and I wondered whether it was because he knew that he had to put over a difficult case and was hoping that by being moderate and appealing for understanding he might "pull a fast one".
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not succeed. He did not refer a great deal to the commercial aspect of the Bill. People who enter into this sort of activity are not primarily concerned with either the status or the standing of the service they provide, but, quite rightly, are in it to make money. Here I congratulate Lord Thomson of Fleet, who said that a licence to run commercial television was a licence to print money. He has never retracted that remark. It now seems as if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to "get in on the act", with a licence to print not so small change.
This view is not confined to Members on this side of the House. The Confederation of British Industry is jointly responsible with the International Publishing Corporation for the editorial policy of British Industry Week. In a feature article, on 18th April, entitled "Broadcasting's Future: Freedom or Licence?", it had this to say in its conclusions:

Can an Independent Broadcasting Authority effectively restrain commercial local radio from following the appalling examples of American radio and dragging B.B.C. Radio after it? The answer probably lies in one's view of human nature. The Conservative case is not helped by the knowledge that many of the loudest propagandists for local commercial radio stand to gain financially from its inception.
We have to look at this very carefully. We are creating something new in broadcasting. Although it angers me at times and irritates me at others, I am, nevertheless, proud that it was we who provided one of the finest forms of broadcasting the world has ever seen—the B.B.C. What is more, the B.B.C. has changed its character to meet the times without changing its integrity. That is vital.
While I agree that local broadcasting would be good in principle, we must examine the matter in the context of the national interest. Once we say that, we are confronted with many questions. Some right hon. Members opposite have seemed almost to imitate a fifth-rate bingo caller in crying out that the number of stations should be 100 and without saying why it should not be 99 or 101. This is not a sensible way of dealing with an important question like the establishment of local radio. We must ask how many stations and what areas are to be covered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) pointed out the difference between a city like Leeds or Leicester, which, I understand, has one of the experimental stations, and a large conurbation like London. If local radio is established, I hope that we shall have one in the Borough of Ealing which will not necessarily come under the control of the G.L.C. or be directed by the G.L.C. That would be having direct local control over a proper form of local radio. I hope that some hon. Members agree with that, irrespective of whether it is run commercially or by the B.B.C.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham touched on the question of limited wavelengths. This can be a dry aspect of debate, but I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will acknowledge that the effect on national broadcasting of the use of wavelengths for local purposes is an extremely important aspect. We cannot dismiss these problems too lightly. We should give them the degree of importance to which they are entitled.
For whose benefit would local radio be established? Would it be for somebody to make money out of advertising or for the community it is to serve?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the hon. Gentleman ask exactly the same question about local newspapers? Do not they live on advertising? Would the hon. Gentleman take away the right of local newspapers to go on "printing money"?

Mr. Molloy: It is a nasty slur on the people in the printing industry to say that they have been printing money. I quoted a statement by a noble Lord. There is no analogy between local newspapers and the power of broadcasting. I hope to say a few words about that later.
In the medium of broadcasting, we must pay attention to public accountability. We must ask: public accountability by whom and to whom? We must ask how local radio can best serve the local communities for which it is designed. Parliament has a responsibility in this context. I part company from the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames in looking at this matter in the narrow context of London. I do not mean that London is a narrow context, but we have a responsibility from the point of view of the nation as a whole to make sure that we create something good which can spread throughout the country.
Therefore, the interests of local communities must be taken into consideration. Surely we must define those local communities. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames would say that Kingston has many interests which might be similar to, but not exactly the same as, those in Ealing. I should like to see local broadcasting based on the Borough of Kingston or say on the Borough of Ealing. This is an argument not primarily against the idea of local broadcasting, but for not automatically accepting that the Greater London area is the local community.
I have posed a number of questions, and I believe that an effort has already been made to find some of the answers. I refer to points which have been made about the experiment being made by the B.B.C. In November, 1967, the B.B.C.

launched its local radio experiment. I understand that eight stations are transmitting. Let us consider briefly how they function and how they are organised. I understand that each station serves its own town and area and cannot be heard outside its area. This is what encourages me in the view that there could be local radio for Kingston and local radio for Ealing. That might be a possibility. It is worth investigating. The experiments now taking place will help the right hon. Gentleman and myself in assessing the practicality of what I am proposing.
From the reports that we have had, the stations generally have been a success. Here we have common ground. Both sides of the House are ready to accept that the principle of local radio is good and we can be assured in our judgment by the experiment being carried out by the B.B.C. These local stations have stimulated discussion on a vast number of local problems and matters of local interest. No doubt they have also committed some errors. Probably some mistakes have been made. Let us consider these matters in detail so that when the service is expanded we can enhance those things which are fine and which should be enhanced and rectify the errors and eliminate the things which have gone wrong.
The basic concept is that each station should reflect the character of its own neighbourhood. There should be a local broadcasting council to keep an eye on what is going on, to which representations could be made and which would be generally responsible and answerable for policy.
What is happening in the local radio experiment might not be possible if local radio were to be run on a commercial basis. The existing eight local radio stations are entitled to the free use of programmes from the four national networks of the B.B.C. This is an important aspect. I also believe that to the extent that there is no direct interest in a particular aspect by those who run the local broadcasting, this can be a very good thing.
My idea of local radio broadcasting is that it should reflect the interests of the people in their ordinary associations. In the Borough of Ealing we have a number of local associations in Northolt and Greenford, including, for example, the


British Legion and the gardening association. These local associations, however, could not have a proper say in a designated area as large as Greater London.
In an emergency, the local radio can sometimes play a great part. In Northolt and Greenford, for example, we were opposed to the former Conservative Government's proposals for a D-ring road. We continued our opposition when the present Government took over. We were helped enormously by our local newspapers. By presenting the case and explaining the issue to people, local radio could have made its contribution, but I doubt whether it could do so properly had the area which it served been too large.
The argument has been whether local radio should be commercial or should be run on B.B.C. lines. I prefer the latter, but there is another reason to be considered. Is it not a fact that in the nation today we have a welter of advertising? Wherever one goes, there is some form of advertising. I am not opposed to advertising. I believe that we must have it. We have almost the two extremes, from the dignified to the absurd and from the responsible to the repugnant.
We see advertising on trains, the underground, buses, cartons, papers, magazines, television and the rest and I believe that at some stage we ought to say that this is enough. I believe that it is enough and that if people in advertising were challenged about it they, too, would agree. It is also costing the country an enormous amount of money.
There is also a real danger to local newspapers and I do not see why we should destroy one element of the local media in creating another. I hope, therefore, that having enjoyed the high quality of broadcasting which has been provided on a national scale by the B.B.C., we do not rush in foolishly and establish a commercial system which cannot attain those high standards. We should allow the experiment to continue and properly examine in depth the future of local broadcasting. What we do in the establishment of local radio could either enhance or mar the future. I believe that the experiment should be examined, because it is being produced by a source—the B.B.C.—which is still

the pride of this country and the envy of the world.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) will forgive me when I say that I thought there was a large dollop of hypocrisy in a great deal of what he said. There is, however, a tendency for hypocrisy to creep into a lot of our speeches on broadcasting. We like to assume that the public as a whole want programmes of a high intellectual level and long for cultural diversification. Unfortunately, however, we have to face the fact that a large part of the public plainly want programmes which I would call trash. A large section of them seems to want continuous pop music, interspersed occasionally with the grunts and mutterings of disc jockeys.
When I drive to the House in the morning I often have to listen to Mr. Jimmy Young's programme which we know runs T.T.T.—Through Till Twelve. Mr. Young's rather inane jocularity I find particularly jarring. But it is of value to me, because I tend to leave my house in a rather somnolent frame of mind, and by the time I arrive here I find that my nerves are jangling and when I go into Committee I am ready to attack Ministers tooth and nail.
My reaction to Jimmy Young is plainly not representative of that of the country as a whole. It is obvious that thousands of housewives like, and indeed adore, the sort of programme that he puts out. What I never want to do is to deprive them of this sort of programme, but what I do not see is why the B.B.C. should pay to put this out.
We know that the B.B.C. is short of money. We know that it has many plans for distinguished programmes covering many subjects which it feels it cannot undertake without a substantial increase in the licence fee or a substantial increase in Government subvention.
It therefore seems right and proper that instead of trying to ape the worst of Radio Caroline, which B.B.C. 1, and, regrettably, part of B.B.C. 2, seems to be doing, there should be a progressive retreat by the B.B.C. from this field. It should concentrate its resources, which are necessarily scarce, and will always be under pressure,


into such fields as Radio 3 with the continuous programme of serious music, where the B.B.C. has a contribution to make which no one else can duplicate.
To me, the most serious part of this debate is whether local newspaper interests will be affected. I have been a journalist, and perhaps some of my children will be journalists, and when it comes to a choice between local radio and the local Press, then I say unhesitatingly that I choose the local Press. I think that most hon. Members would do so, because we are dependent to a large extent on local newspapers for communication with our constituents. Local newspapers print our speeches when the national newspapers do not. They inform our constituents that we attended the opening of this school, and the opening of that garden fete, and I should be loath to see the local Press disappear.
I do not believe that the introduction of local broadcasting will have the calamitous effect which some people fear. When local broadcasting comes on a regional basis—and here I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) that regional broadcasting is much less of a threat to the members of the newspaper society than real local broadcasting—we will find that the audience for this local broadcasting is a young one.
The advertisers on these stations will aim their advertisements at a youthful section of the community. It will not be the local newspapers but the magazines aimed at that age group in the community which will be affected, and I worry about their fate a great deal less than I worry about the fate of the local newspapers. We shall see a reduction in advertising, but primarily in the magazines catering for adolescents, and we may see a transfer of advertising from Radio Luxembourg, which is not a bad thing, either.
I do not believe that the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Faversham are valid. Nevertheless, there may be some grounds for them, and I therefore suggest that we have an experiment. Before we move to commercial sound broadcasting throughout the country, surely we should have an experiment in one area—and where better than London, because here we have a strong local Press,

which is less likely to suffer than is the local Press in most areas if things go wrong, and here we already have an obvious regional identity. We have in London the greatest local authority in the world. When they say that now is the time to go forward with an experiment, we should heed their advice.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This will be a relatively brief intervention, and I shall address myself mainly to the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in presenting the case for the Bill.
The right hon. Member was at his most reasonable and persuasive and could have deceived anyone about the real nature and purpose of the Measure. At one stage, he even attempted to present it as a contribution to the modernisation of local government. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. Notwithstanding the attractive clothing in which it was dressed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill is deeply objectionable to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is certainly not an extension of municipal ownership—one would not expect that from the Conservative Party—but a means of opening the road to private interests in local radio.
The Bill begs almost all the questions which will face my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General when he evaluates the local radio experiment which has been conducted by the B.B.C. In particular, the Bill begs the questions of finance and of wavelengths. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was right to press the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames on the question of wavelengths. The right hon. Gentleman's answer to that question, which involves very complicated issues, was much less than convincing to anyone who has taken a serious interest in it. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the best use of the limited number of wavelengths available is one of the principal questions which will have to be examined by my right hon. Friend.
On finance, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman for his view on the extent to which the source of finance affects the nature of the service. I should have thought the whole House would agree that the experiment of the B.B.C. in eight


localities has been at once exciting and extremely promising for the future. No one could say that any of those eight stations has detracted in any way from the very high standards of the B.B.C. There must be hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have taken a close interest in the B.B.C.'s experiment in their localities, who see the dangers of the Bill and should, in all conscience, allow time for the B.B.C.'s experiment to be properly evaluated before voting for a Bill like this.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman poses the very pertinent question: does the source of finance affect the quality of the service? Is not the best method to try, and then to contrast an advertisement-financed service in London with the B.B.C.'s otherwise-financed service in the provinces and form an objective judgment on the facts when we know them?

Mr. Morris: This is one of the central questions. Those who contribute finance to a service like this will have a loud voice in dictating the policies to be pursued. What I had very much in mind in raising the question of finance was an extract from an article in a recent series in The Guardian about radio in the 'seventies. The author, Vincent Brome, was warning people about the low standards of American radio, under the title "Dread Spectre of U.S." He gave as an illustration the following experience:
Listening, on one occasion, to a broadcast of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, as the Ode to Joy came lyrically to its close there was a suitably reverent pause and then I heard a seductive woman's voice murmer huskily—'Would you care to make your arm-pits charm-pits?'
For my part, I believe that, in local radio, the commercial element is best excluded.
Evidence has been quoted from the Newspaper Society and from the Confederation of British Industry. I should like to quote what has been said by those employed in the newspaper industry, in a resolution passed by an overwhelming majority at the annual conference of the National Union of Journalists in Douglas, Isle of Man, on 18th April last. The resolution said:
That this Annual Delegates' Meeting opposes the introduction of local commercial radio. It calls on the Government to take

steps to introduce local radio on a permanent basis by the B.B.C. It believes that commercial radio would be the death knell of many local newspapers.
So it is not just the opposition of the Newspaper Society that we have to consider. The employees of the newspaper industry regard measures of this kind as a threat to their livelihood.
I should have thought that all of us admire the local newspapers, which make a significant and valuable contribution to the quality of life in their localities. Thus, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members opposite to vote according to their real feelings on the Bill. I ask them to have regard to the fact that a local radio experiment is now being evaluated by the B.B.C. and will then be evaluated by the Postmaster-General. Let us not beg questions which must arise in those evaluations.
If we have regard to this important factor, I am certain that the House will reject the Bill.

8.50 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I intervene only briefly in the debate because eyes other than Southern Region ones are looking at our discussion with enormous interest. They would be keen to know what was to happen if a Bill relating to London were passed, hoping very much that the principle would spread to their region, too.
There is no doubt that the Government have every intention that the Bill will be defeated. I suppose that this ought to surprise no one. The Government have a perfect penchant for giving the British people neither what they voted for nor what they want. To expect them suddenly to give the people something that they would really like for once would be hoping for too much.
The Bill would give the people in the Greater London area what they want. It is as simple as that. It would give it to them at no cost. In that connection, I take issue with the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston). If he went shopping and bought a given product, one brand of which was well advertised and one that was not, he would very likely pay more for the one which was not advertised, because the demand created by advertising tends to keep down prices.
We have heard a great deal tonight about local radio, and even hon. Members opposite seem to agree that it has been a success. However, one important point has not been made, and I am amazed if hon. Members opposite do not know it. It is that the money available for local radio is not forthcoming in the amounts which were expected.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) almost threw up his hands in horror at the thought of private interests entering local radio. Either he lives a very sheltered life, or he has not done his homework. Many local businessmen were approached and asked to donate money to run local radio stations.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My point was about the real nature and purpose of the Bill. It is not to improve local radio. It is an attempt to serve private interests.

Mrs. Knight: It is more simple than the hon. Gentleman appears to think. It cannot be accepted that at one moment businessmen are wicked self-seeking capitalists and at the next are good enough to finance local radio. To say that there have been no interests of a private nature in local radio is quite wrong.
In my view, and, I am sure, in the view of the vast majority of people, local broadcasting should be financed by advertising revenue and not out of public funds, from the proceeds of increasing licence fees, which are heavy enough already for a great many, or in any way which pushes up the rates demanded from local residents.
I support the Bill strongly because experience has shown that such competition would improve standards of broadcasting. We have before us the experience of television. Before we had commercial television, the standards of B.B.C. television were very low. It was the competition of commercial television that pushed up those standards and forced the B.B.C. to realise that there was another channel; that people could look elsewhere. It was only that competition which improved the B.B.C.'s television standards.
Reference has been made to the effect of advertising on American radio. Radio there has changed very much in recent months, and I wonder whether any of

those who have referred to it in such disparaging terms today have listened to American radio recently. I returned from America only last week. While I was there, I did a very great deal of listening, particularly while I was travelling, and I thought that the intrusion of advertising had very much altered. The wide range of programmes available amply compensated for the small amount of advertising to which I had to listen.
I cannot accept the argument that if we have local commercial radio, local newspapers will die. I am convinced that people will still take their local newspaper for the advertisements, the "small ads" particularly. Listening to a short advertisement on the radio, one does not know whether one has the words just right, and so on. It is far better to have a local newspaper to refer to, particularly for the "small ads". No one would pretend that revenue from these advertisements would be taken from the newspapers by local radio. I have more faith in local newspapers than have hon. Members opposite. Come what may, they will survive, particularly if they have good feature articles.
It has been said from the other side that politics would rear its ugly head in local radio. That is a false accusation against local radio. Advertisers know very well the danger there is in coming down on one side or the other politically, and would not for one moment countenance any imbalance. The danger is much more likely in circumstances where local councils actually control local stations in a manner which the Bill specifically precludes.
I shall, as thousands outside this House would, if they could, support the Bill with keen enthusiasm.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: What we are arguing about tonight is not the merits or demerits of local radio, but how it should be financed. Before coming to this House in November, I had extensive experience in local Radio Sheffield. As a member of the council, I pushed very hard to get the necessary finance for Radio Sheffield, and then tried to take an active part in it because I was interested in the experiment.
The present method of finance is not good. The sum provided in Sheffield is


about £50,000 per annum, and that is high compared with the amount provided for some other local radio stations. It is about the equivalent of ½d. rate. I do not know what is the product of a penny rate in the area of the Greater London Council, but I expect that it will be about £1 million. If I am right, the £½ million produced by ½d. rate would be sufficient to run a local radio station quite adequately.
There are very great dangers involved in asking a local radio station to rely on commercial advertisers to keep its financial head above water. With the present local radio station, there is an air of participation. One might call it a parochial air, but it is the air which people in a city have when they talk of local government, or something like that. I appeared on Radio Sheffield many times. It never entered my head to ask for a fee, or even for my bus fare. I know many people who appeared on local Radio Sheffield who actually lost working time, but never asked for expenses for the couple of hours they lost. The story would be very different if the local radio station were commercial, because then no performer would be prepared to lose time from work in order that a commercial company might make greater profits.
I have heard problems debated on local radio which would not be debated on any commercial programme. One on Radio Sheffield discussed why local shops did not employ coloured assistants. Names were freely bandied about of shops which did or did not do so. That debate would not have taken place if the shops had been paying for the advertising because there would be great pressure from the shops so that they should not be embarrassed by it being known that they were not employing coloured labour. There would be a tendency to shy away from programmes which caused local controversy if they affected local advertising. Advertising Heinz Baked Beans might be all very well, but local shops following a programme which is given regularly for Pakistanis would be difficult. I listen frequently to that programme and I have heard the name "Enoch Powell" mentioned quite often.
I am not particularly worried about the effect on local newspapers, for if there were local commercial radio probably local newspapers would run it. It would

not be the local family newspaper that did this, however, but the chains of local newspapers in the provinces. Soon we would be on the slippery path leading to a very few people controlling all the methods of communication. In the cities local radio is doing a well worth while job. It provides a good service to local labour exchanges in giving notice of vacancies. I do not think we would get that on commercial stations. Who would pay for it? In Sheffield every local drama group gets its programmes advertised free and every local school performance or performance by the university groups has a free "plug" in a programme called "Billboard". The help given to these non-profit-making bodies would not be forthcoming from commercial radio because everyone would be expected to pay.
I admit that there are sometimes difficulties over programmes where members of an audience are expected to participate by phoning their views. Sometimes a person might phone, "Don't forget to visit the local Mecca tonight where Big Bill's group is appearing". That is a hazard which one has to accept, but if it happened frequently on a local commercial station people would still be phoning, but not on a direct live line as at present. Somehow this would have to be filtered and prepared before it was broadcast.
People working in local radio are doing a magnificent job. They work very long hours, many more than those in most trade unions or businesses would work. They are dedicated people who are prepared to do anything for their station. For instance, it has been reported when one of these people has finished work and is driving home he may see a fire and he would go back to his local radio station to switch on and report the fire. These people are entitled not to have a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Too often local radios are attacked by local politicians and the B.B.C. makes a poor case in their defence.
We have to get into perspective the cost of local radio. One can be run efficiently at the cost of two libraries, or perhaps three. Would anyone object to the cost of three libraries going on to the rates? Of course they would not. The number of listeners to local radio, even if it is transmitted on V.H.F., is much greater than the number of readers that


the two or three local libraries would have.
I believe that the case has not been properly presented for local radio. The educational content of the programmes has not been assessed by local authorities, which two often have tried to make political capital out of it. The time has come for a proper assessment to be made and for the petty political squabbles in relation to local radio to be ended. I hope that a policy decision will be taken soon so that the people working in local radio can be given the stability in their jobs to which they are entitled.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who treated us to his personal knowledge of the running of a local radio station. It is always interesting to listen to somebody who has worked in the institution about which one is talking. However, the hon. Gentleman did not contribute as much to the debate as I would have hoped. He compared the cost of running a local radio station with the cost of running two or three libraries, but he did not say where the money was to come from. I hope to learn from the Postmaster-General before long where all the money for these local stations is to come from.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that local radio stations, if they carried commercial advertising, would not concern themselves with local controversy. That is nonsense. Newspapers involve themselves in controversy all the time, but they carry advertising and they mention shops by name. So I do not think that this point made by the hon. Gentleman was sound or helpful.
We are all in favour of the concept of local radio stations, but what we are not sure about is the form which they should take. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), in an interjection, pointed to our major problem, which is this: why should there not be this second type of local broadcasting at the same time as the other experiment is still proceeding? I should be much happier about the other experiment if I knew where the money was coming from.
In the White Paper, the then Postmaster-General listed a number of local bodies and institutions which he hoped would contribute to local stations. I have attempted without success to question him and his successor over the last 18 months. I suppose that we shall now have to wait until later in the year before he tells us exactly where the money is to come from. I still believe that after the initial B.B.C. payment it will come from the ratepayers, although the White Paper emphasises that this is not the Government's intention.
Hon. Members opposite have expressed their very understandable fears about the effect of local radio on newspapers. I can speak from a little personal experience here. I shared their views strongly in another light 15 years ago when commercial television started. I then had great doubts as to what the effect would be on newspapers. In fact, advertising has increased enormously since those days. As one of my hon. Friends so cogently pointed out, the number of classified advertisements has increased to a terrific extent.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) quoted some percentages. I would much rather have heard from the hon. Gentleman what the percentages were over a period on a total figure, because I believe that advertising has risen so much over these years as to indicate that the same thing will happen again, namely, that there will be a greater volume of advertising and the local papers—I, too, am fortunate in having very good ones in my constituency—will not suffer. The fact that the Bill is so carefully worded as to give them a chance of participating in these new local stations will be beneficial to them. I do not think that the effect that local radio will have on local newspapers need worry us. I am convinced that local newspapers will not suffer, although I understand the fears of the Director of the Newspaper Society.
I am delighted to see from the Bill that the programmes are to be of high quality. I am delighted to see from Clause 11 that there are to be advisory committees which will concern themselves with religious programmes, educational programmes, and so on.
The last sentence in the very interesting speech made by Lord Hill, from which quotations have already been made, describes so well what we are talking about. Lord Hill said:
Moreover, encouragement can always be given to the adventurous to attempt to achieve something new. Experiments do not always work the first time, but they are the only way advances can be made. They are an essential part of the process of aiming at a level of excellence.
I believe that by giving the Bill a Second Reading tonight we should give the Greater London Council a chance to achieve that excellence which will be in the interests of all Londoners.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General will wish to intervene in this debate, so it may be convenient if I say a few words now from the Opposition Front Bench to precede him.
We are the only people in the English-speaking world not to have commercial radio. Therefore, when a local authority, the local authority of our capital city, proposes a scheme of this sort—a pilot scheme, not a pirate scheme—it is right that we should consider it carefully on Second Reading of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) reminded us that the Bill will be considered in detail by a Committee well able to sift the facts and judge whether there are any strong objections to a scheme of this kind.
Nevertheless, we can consider at this stage the principle of local authority commercial radio and whether it would be so damaging to our society that we ought not to let a Measure of this sort through on Second Reading. We ought to consider whether we can reasonably obtain the advantages which other countries are obtaining from commercial radio without damage to our way of life here.
When I said that we are the only people in the English-speaking world not to have commercial radio, I did not include in the "we" the Isle of Man. We can turn to the experiment there to see whether it is effective, and whether it is undermining the morals of the public

or the finances of the Press in the Isle of Man. The reports which I have are that it is doing neither of the latter.
I am not sure whether the opponents of the Bill really think that it proposes some squalid commercialism. The Postmaster-General will agree that the Post Office itself descends into squalid commercialism, if it be such, in selling advertising space.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): The Post Office descends into commercialism, but not into squalid commercialism.

Mr. Page: I am pleased to have that confirmation from the right hon. Gentleman. The Post Office uses revenue from advertising space, and it makes use of advertising by all media, including television.
However, we should try to approach this subject without bias or exaggerated phrases—with which, perhaps, I was teasing the right hon. Gentleman rather than being serious. We should approach it without bias on either side. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), and my right hon. Friend in an intervention, reminded us, we have in television at present the non-commercial B.B.C. and the commercial I.T.V., and we can compare those two services. On the other hand, we have non-commercial local radio but we have no commercial local radio with which to compare it. If there is no valid objection to trying such a comparison, let us try it through a responsible body such as the Greater London Council.
First, then, is there any valid objection? I do not think that any objection on technical grounds has been put forward in the debate, I understand that there is no objection to London local radio on those grounds, but the Postmaster-General will, no doubt, tell us if there is some technical objection. Second, on the cost aspect, can it be made self-supporting? There is no doubt about that. Indeed, the complaint seems to be that it will make a profit, though whether for the contractors on it or the local authority running it is irrelevant at the moment. That much be sorted out as the administration of the Bill is considered.
But I should have thought that it would be very simple for local commercial radio to make a profit on a charge per thousand basis of about 2s. to 2s. 6d.—I understand that Luxembourg charges Is. 6d.—if it provided that service during daylight hours when Luxembourg is not giving a service. There is no doubt that there is a very strong demand for this sort of service, and we should not be hypocritical, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) says, about what the demand is. It may be a demand for a type of service to which we do not all enjoy listening. But it is a service which the pirate stations proved was very popular and in great demand.
Thirdly, on the question of whether there is any valid objection, would it cause damage to the legitimate interests such as the newspapers and particularly the local newspapers? I appreciate the arguments of the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and Faversham, but I am not sure that they should weigh with us in considering the proposition put forward by the Bill. If radio is a medium which provides more effective advertising in certain spheres than local newspapers, I doubt whether we should by Statute prevent or limit its use. Therefore, I would not base my argument on saying that it will not take any advertising from the local newspapers. I only say that that is not a good argument for local commercial radio. However, we heard a very informed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Silvester), who said that the local Press would not be the loser.
This is a Private Bill, but should we treat it in isolation or as a precedent for something further? Again, we should not be hypocritical. Obviously, if we accept the Bill, it will be a precedent. It will be a model for expansion into other local radio services. I am not afraid to consider it from that point of view—from the point of view of national development.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said that London was a prototype of regional government. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West said that it is unique in that there is no other local government body quite like London, we must look

forward to regional government in one form or another, and it may well be necessary to consider new forms of revenue for local and regional government. This may be a very useful experiment and precedent in the collection of a new form of local revenue. For that reason, I am not sure that it is wise to earmark this revenue for any particular purpose or to base our argument for the Bill on the belief that any profits made by the local authority will go towards this or that—sport, culture, or whatever it may be. We should try this as a new form of local revenue.
It would follow that the control authority, if appointed by the local authority, might be suspect. I should like to see eventually a control authority centrally appointed for all local radio stations operating on a commercial basis. Such an authority would ensure what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) wanted—status and standing for the service being provided. One looks to the authority to provide that. But I do not think that anyone is prepared to argue that the status and standing of B.B.C. television is so much greater than that of I.T.V. It is the authority which looks after that and it would do so for local commercial radio.
On a Private Bill, it is traditional for the Opposition Front Bench to sit on the fence. Therefore, I should preface what I am about to say by assuring the House that we have no Whips on this side of the House. But I hope that the House will feel that we can, by this Bill and the activity it will authorise, examine whether that which has suited all other English-speaking countries—local commercial radio—is worth adopting here and that we can give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.20 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): A common thread throughout the speeches on both sides has been support of the concept of regional or local broadcasting. This is a welcome new development. If we had had this debate a few years ago, local radio would not have had the sort of support it has received tonight in most of the speeches. It is a compliment, I believe, to the eight radio station experiment that the B.B.C. has been conducting during the last 18


months, and I endorse the compliments paid to that experiment during the debate.
The B.B.C., the staff of the stations and the chairman and their advisory committees in the various localities have done an excellent job. There is no doubt that they have managed to convince not only the public who have the advantage of listening to their programmes, but also a great and wider public, particularly informed and interested authorities in this House, of the advantages of this type of broadcasting.
Despite that common thread, there has been a sharp difference of view about how local broadcasting should be implemented. Most hon. Members opposite who have spoken support the Bill and, through it, are supporting, therefore, the concept of commercial broadcasting. Most of the speeches on this side have been against commercial broadcasting in favour of awaiting the full evaluation of the experiment now being conducted.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made a speech of moderation and has had the tribute of the House for it. He said that there is no reason why the Bill should not go to a Select Committee for further consideration. I beg to disagree with him. I believe that if the House were to give the Bill a Second Reading it would be tantamount to accepting the principle of local authority broadcasting and commercial broadcasting. It would follow that other municipal authorities would want to emulate the example of the G.L.C. and establish similar broadcasting authorities so as to take advantage of the precedent to which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) fairly referred.
The big objection to the Bill being given a Second Reading is that it would pre-empt the fair evaluation of the local radio experiment being conducted by the B.B.C., with the House of Commons deciding that local radio was to be established by municipal broadcasting authorities and financed by advertising. I believe that the House and the country are not ready to make such a decision before the full facts of the B.B.C.'s experiment are known.

Mr. John Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider accepting

the Bill on the basis of a three-year experimental period?

Mr. Stonehouse: There are objections to that as well. I detected a note of experiment in several speeches tonight. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the advantage of the experiment in the Bill. The hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Silvester) referred to an experiment. There were several indications of experiment. But I have studied the Bill in detail and I have seen nothing about experiment in it. It would establish a fully fledged Greater London Radio Authority and, as the House well knows, once such authorities are established by law, they develop a momentum of considerable dimensions.
Who could say that the I.T.A. was still an experiment? It is part of our established broadcasting fabric. Similarly, the Greater London Radio Authority, if established, and if, as I think it would be, followed by a Manchester Radio Authority and perhaps a Glasgow Authority, would become an established framework which it would be most difficult, if not unwise at that stage, to attempt to dismantle. So I dismiss the suggestion that this could be considered an experiment, and it would be unwise of the House to approach the subject in that frame of mind. We have to consider the principles which the Bill would establish.

Mr. Silvester: Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if the experiment continued, it would do so only because it had been successful? The example of the I.T.A. is a case in point. We would not wish to close down something which had been successful. It is an experiment only in the sense that it is the first. If it were successful, it would continue.

Mr. Stonehouse: It would be built upon solid vested commercial interests which would wish it to continue and it would be next to impossible to dismantle it once it had been established for some time. It would, therefore, be unwise for the House to rush in to approve a proposal of this character which, as the hon. Member for Crosby has said, would establish a precedent.
It is important that we approach the eight-station local radio experiment review with a clear mind. If we were


to pass the Bill, I doubt whether that review, which I am hoping to conduct in July, could be conducted fairly. The House expects a fair review of that experiment and the station staffs expect a fair review. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) who, in an interesting speech in which he drew on his own experience of the Sheffield experiment, spoke of the dedication of the station staffs to the experiment. If we were to pass the Bill, it would be a blow to those station staffs who have hung on in order to see a fair and complete evaluation of the experiment. They would feel that the ground was being cut from under their feet before the experiment had been correctly evaluated.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that these devoted staffs—and I accept their devotion—would feel badly treated because a totally different system was being operated by way of contrast? If they have confidence in their system, surely they should value the opportunity to contrast it with another system so as to judge which is better.

Mr. Stonehouse: The local staffs do an outstanding job. One extremely well known local official is Mr. Sidey, of Radio Leeds, who has published some of his ideas, so I think I am entitled to quote his name. There are many such people serving these stations and they have a public service philosophy. They are not motivated by commercial considerations, and they would feel that the whole local broadcasting experiment would be ruined, in its public service context, if a commercial base was established. Certainly if local authorities have a vested interest in the commercial considerations motivating the programme companies, because they would get an income from it, they would not be able to operate the type of public service broadcasting entailed in the type of experiment being conducted in quite the same frame of mind.
The passing of the Bill would preempt the evaluation of the radio experiments that we are hoping to conduct in July. The Bill is also open to grave objections of principle, first, because it involves, for the first time, the devolution of the broadcasting authority. The

Bill would enable a public authority to set up a radio service in the metropolis and empower the Greater London Council to appoint members of the authority—it is true after consultation with the Postmaster-General—but the actual authority for appointment would be with the G.L.C.
This raises a completely new constitutional concept in broadcasting. The House would want to consider long and carefully before it went down this road of establishing devoluted broadcasting authorities. It involves a fundamental departure from the constitutional basis on which have depended the broadcasting policies pursued in the past, by Governments of whatever persuasion. The rather lukewarm support given to the Bill by the hon. Member for Crosby shows that the Conservative Party has turned its back on something which it always accepted as a fundamental principle, namely, national broadcasting authorities to protect the national asset of broadcasting frequencies, and to ensure national standards which are, as has been acknowledged, second to none in the world.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that while I may have sounded very moderate in what I have said, I am not lukewarm in any way. I am very warm in my praise for the Bill. I do not think that he could have heard what I said about the centrally controlled authority. I said that I hoped the Bill would be amended to the extent that the authority would be appointed centrally, and not by the local authority.

Mr. Stonehouse: I said that the hon. Gentleman was lukewarm because he has not made clear how this venture, which he intimated would be an experiment, although it is not in the Bill as such, would line up with the observations made by the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) about 100 broadcasting stations linked with the I.T.A. There is a good deal of confusion on the other side of the House. If the hon. Member is now indicating that he supports the Bill wholeheartedly, I do not believe that he is entitled to do so, because there has been inadequate consideration on that side of the House about its implications. There are important considerations here, to do with


the constitutional nature of the proposal. The G.L.C. would have power to establish the broadcasting authority and appoint and dismiss its members. Hitherto, this power has been reserved for the central Administration.
Second, the authority would be answerable to the G.L.C., and hitherto all broadcasting authorities have been answerable to Parliament, to whom their annual reports are presented by the Postmaster-General. Third, the surpluses earned by the authority would be applied as the G.L.C. directed, whereas surpluses enjoyed by the I.T.A. are applied as directed by the Ministers concerned. This new concept, although it may appear to have some attractions, has very serious dangers, and it would be most unwise to accept this breach in our existing constitutional practice in such a piecemeal fashion, as the Bill suggests.
The Bill is open to another grave objection on principle. It opens the door for a large-scale development of commercial sound broadcasting, which hitherto this country, apart from the Isle of Man, has turned its back on. This could have effects on the standards of sound broadcasting, and I am very doubtful whether the minority interests which the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill) defended would be protected if the primary motivation of the broadcasting companies that would be established as a result of the Bill is to maximise the audience so as to maximise the advertising income.
One of the wonderful results so far established by the eight-station experiment we have discussed is that the stations have been able to break out into experiment in a great variety of ways without having to worry about maximising the audience, as was the case with the pirate radio stations.
Several of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) referred to the effect on local newspapers, some of which are in a highly marginal condition. There is no doubt that if we had local radio advertising on a wide scale many such newspapers would collapse. Although we are interested to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, who spoke from personal experience in this connection, I would refer the House to the Report of

the Royal Commission on the Press, published in September, 1962. In paragraph 269 the Commission reported that in its opinion
If local sound radio financed from advertising revenue were to be introduced … the provincial newspapers would probably be seriously injured. The bulk of broadcast advertising is at present national advertising, and the provincial newspaper, particularly the evening and the weekly, is fairly secure in its hold on local advertising. An outlet for local advertising on the air would alter this position.
The House must weigh up that advice very seriously before allowing local radio advertising to be conducted on the lines suggested in the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why what he has quoted from the Royal Commission's Report is entirely the opposite of the experience of other countries, such as Australia, the United States and Canada? Local papers there do not suffer as a result of the existence of local radio.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am not so certain that that is the case, but it is the general view in the newspaper world, almost without exception, that if local radio advertising were allowed newspaper finances would be severely affected. I have received deputations on the subject from many representatives of the Press, and I believe that they know what they are talking about.
There has been a reference to the question of wavelengths. I do not want to take up much time on this, but to put the position in perspective I would like to say something about it. First, the deployment and use of frequencies must be fitted into a long-term and comprehensive strategy. There can be no conceivable doubt for those who choose to listen after sunset that the medium wavelength is congested to a point that interference is spoiling the sound services in many parts of the country.
It is not good enough to refer to the medium wave as being available for local broadcasting during the daytime, because in mid-winter sunset arrives at about 3.30 p.m. The right strategy is to make increasing use of v.h.f. Most countries are moving in this direction. I believe that in Spain there has been a clear directive to this effect.
Hon. Members may recall that as long ago as the early 1950s the move to v.h.f.


was started. It was right then and I believe that it is right now. If we could have a general service on medium wave for local radio, it would, of course, command higher audiences at the outset, but as local radio becomes more established on v.h.f. I believe that people will be able, and will want, to acquire more v.h.f. sets, which are not all that expensive. I do not accept that they are out of bounds from the expense point of view. I believe that the quality of reception would also be improved, not only for the local radio, but for all the other broadcasting stations.
It is of significance that in the towns where the local radio experiment is being conducted, sales of v.h.f. radio sets have increased appreciably. In those towns, from the figures I have so far seen, a very high proportion of the population can receive these programmes.
I believe that the Bill is an ill-conceived proposal. If we were to accept it tonight, it would pre-empt the evaluation that we must conduct of the local radio experiment in July. It is open to fundamental objections on principle. For these reasons, I advise the House to oppose the Bill.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: The debate has been marked by a number of interesting and informed speeches from both sides of the House and hon. Members will, no doubt, forgive me if in the time that is left to me I do not take up all the points which have been mentioned. I will, however, try to deal with the main lines of attack against the Bill, but before doing so I would like to refer briefly to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill), who asked for consideration to be given to minority religious opinion.
In Clause 11 of the Bill there is provision for the establishment of a committee of representatives of the main streams of religious thought in the United Kingdom. That committee is to advise the authority on religious matters. I say only "advise". It will be for the authority itself to decide what weight to give to the advice which it receives. I feel sure that when the authority sees the light of day, as I have no doubt it will one of these days, despite the depressing remarks of the Postmaster-General, the remarks

of my hon. Friend will be taken into account.
The main line of attack which has been made against the Bill is on the quality of the programmes that would be likely to result from commercialism. That attack was led by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), supported by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), but their prejudice has so blinded them that they were not able to read the print in the Bill. If they had done so, they would have realised that they were talking a great deal of nonsense.
Clause 3 says that the authority has a duty to provide
a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment.
Moreover, it has a duty to provide programmes of a high quality, and that is further defined, because Clause 5 says that there must be nothing in the programmes
which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling.
That is a statutory duty in relation to the quality of the broadcasts, and if the authority does not comply with those requirements there will be a breach of statutory duty, with all the legal consequences which flow from that.
In addition, there must be sufficint time for
news and news features, particularly on matters of local interest",
and, to answer another point made from the benches opposite, there must be due impartiality in relation to matters of political or industrial controversy.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and myself. What is his reply to the fact that the opinions we expressed were supported by British Industry Week, a magazine produced by the Confederation of British Industry?

Mr. Rossi: There are many interests involved all arguing one way or the other. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, because I have very little time in which to answer all the points which have been raised.
I am suggesting that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure


a high standard of broadcasting, and that there is no need for the fear which has been expressed that because the financing is to be by commercial interests, rather than out of public funds, there will necessarily be a deterioration in standards. The protection is provided by the Statute itself.
One of the significant things which flowed from the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that whilst they were against commercial radio, they were nevertheless virtually unanimous in favour of local radio. Attention was drawn in particular to the valuable experiment being conducted by the B.B.C. But what has not been drawn to the attention of the House is the fact that seven out of the eight local authorities concerned in that experiment said on 26th March, 1969, that if the B.B.C. were to continue to operate local radio stations after the end of the experiment financing must be varied so that the burden carried by the local authorities is very materially reduced.

Mr. Ashton: rose—

Mr. Rossi: I cannot give way. I do not have much time left.
The prospect is that local radio must be financed either out of rates or by increased licence fees. Either of those means of raising funds would be unwelcome to the general public, and the danger of providing funds out of rates is that this method gives rise to a degree of political control which would not otherwise exist. This must be borne in mind if the ratepayer is to be responsible for the local radio station.
It is to meet those dangers that the G.L.C. has proposed the structure of an independent authority not requiring support from public funds. The authority appointed by the G.L.C. would be analogous to the I.T.A., with the G.L.C. taking the place of the Postmaster-General. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he is not very keen on having his functions taken away from him and decentralised, but we must also consider this matter against the concept of the decentralisation of government generally. This is an important constitional issue, but modern thinking is towards regional government, and in the G.L.C. we have already set up a regional government with its powers expanded.

This type of activity could well be handled by regional government.
I am not suggesting that necessarily every local authority in the country would have the ability or even the desire to run a local radio station, but if, following the report on local government reorganisation, which we are awaiting, there is to be set up a number of regional governments of considerable size throughout the country, it may well be considered that this would be an appropriate function for them to perform. There would be no harm at all in starting with the G.L.C. to experiment in that field, so that when the other regional governments were set up they would see whether the experiment had been successful.
The Bill provides that part of the advertising revenue will go directly to the G.L.C. It is the intention of the G.L.C. to use that advertising revenue for the promotion of the arts, of music, of opera and of ballet, and to give encouragement to London talent, to give an outlet to struggling artists. Money would be provided from this source to help them with their work, and the local radio station would offer a medium through which their work would be heard. Educationally and in the arts that could be extremely valuable to the culture of the nation.
A number of hon. Members attacked the Bill on the subject of advertising, but almost all their remarks were based on the Pilkington Report of 1962, since when there has been the experience of commercial television. Great fears were expressed at the outset about the effect of commercial television advertising on local and national newspapers, but those fears have proved to be unfounded. The hon. Member for Harrow, East spoke of the danger of the switching of advertisement expenditure from local newspapers to radio, but I do not think that that would happen. It is more likely that greater sums of money would be spent on advertising, because there is nothing like advertising to encourage advertising.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made the point that the type of advertising on radio is different from that in the newspapers. Weekly local newspapers, in particular, require leisurely reading. This is complementary rather than in competition


with the quick news flash which one would have on the radio, and the advertising would be complementary, too. It has also been pointed out that the type of audience sought for radio advertising would be different from that sought in respect of newspaper advertising.
It is possible that at the very beginning, in the experimental stages, there would be a drop in local newspaper advertising, but as my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester), Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and Southgate (Mr. Berry), all hon. Members with considerable personal experience in these matters, indicated, the experience of the national newspapers is that in the long run there would be no appreciably detrimental effect to local newspapers from sound radio, and, in fact, they could well benefit.
Another comment is about the quality of advertising and comparisons with America. I would refer those who make this criticism to the Bill. If they had taken the trouble to read it they would have seen that these objections, too, are unfounded. Clause 10 provides for a code of advertising. If hon. Gentlemen know anything about the code which affects I.T.A., they will know what a valuable protection it is in that sphere, and there is no reason why it should not operate in the same way here. Clause 11 provides for a committee to advise on advertising, with consumer representation, to deal with misleading advertisements. There is also to be a medical advisory panel to deal with questions of medical advertisements. Schedule 2 provides distinctly that advertisements must not be excessively noisy or strident and must be confined to the beginning and end of the programmes or to natural breaks.
If hon. Members had taken the trouble—[Interruption.]—to inform themselves of what is in the Bill, we should have been spared many of the speeches—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to speak against a background of conversation.

Mr. Rossi: A number of hon. Gentlemen, and the Postmaster-General, referred to wavelengths. The right hon.

Gentleman repeated paragraph 32 of his White Paper and spoke of allotted wavelengths. Article 8 of the Convention on European broadcasting, the Copenhagen Plan, makes it possible to make applications for additional wavelengths. Under the Convention 288 stations were allotted, but there are now 877, all legally registered with the International Communications Union by virtue of Article 8. This can all be done by low-powered stations, where power is limited to achieve the desired coverage, and highly sophisticated aerials.
These are not insurmountable technical problems; a feasibility study has shown that it is possible to have local stations of low power covering the Greater London area, which would comply with the Copenhagen Plan, if the right hon. Gentleman invoked Article 8 and obtained permission—as he did for Cyprus, which is operated on the same wavelength as Radio Luxembourg, from a one-kilowatt station. These things can be done.
I therefore urge the House to give London what London wants. The Greater London Council sees no reason why the B.B.C. should have a monopoly in local broadcasting. The Council intends that there should be a minimum of two independent stations, each offering a service throughout Greater London. With two or more stations, each would develop its own character, and will try to serve all Londoners in a way that a monopoly station cannot. It would try to reflect the life of London, and Londoners would have great variety, opportunities for experiment and free choice across the range of stations. The programmes would be of local origin and interest and would not draw, as do the B.B.C. experimental stations for much of their time, on national programmes. I urge the House to accept the Bill.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Of the last four speakers, three have been from the Conservative benches. I make no criticism of that or of the Chair, but they cannot then complain if someone from this side tries to take part in the debate at this late stage.
First, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was speaking—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Sydney Irving): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 109.

Division No. 198.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Astor, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pounder, Rafton


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hornby, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Bernard
Hunt, John
Royle, Anthony


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; whitby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Carlisle, Mark
Kirk, Peter
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stainton, Keith


Crouch, David
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony


Currie, G. B. H.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dempsey, James
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Eadie, Alex
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Errington, Sir Eric
More, Jasper
Wiggin, A. W.


Eyre, Reginald
Murton, Oscar
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Foster, Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Calbraith, Hn. T. G.
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wright, Esmond


Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wylie, N. R.


Gower, Raymond
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Percival, Ian
Mr. Brian Batsford and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. John Page.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard Evan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
Lubbock, Eric


Barnett, Joel
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Galpern, Sir Myer
McCann, James


Bishop, E. S.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.


Booth, Albert
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Manuel, Archie


Boston, Terence
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coe, Denis
Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coleman, Donald
Hannan, William
Neal, Harold


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hazell, Bert
Newens Stan


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hooley, Frank
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Horner, John
Paget, R. T.


Delargy, Hugh
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dewar, Donald
Hoy, James
Pavitt, Laurence


Doig, Peter
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Richard, Ivor


Ellis, John
Judd, Frank
Rose Paul


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lawson, George
Sheldon, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Finch, Harold
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius




Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woof, Robert


Steels, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)



Tinn, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Urwin, T. W.
Winstanley, Dr. M. p.
Mr. Roy Roebuck and


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Mr. Joseph Ashton.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 134.

Division No. 199.]
AYES
[10.9 p.m.


Astor, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Holland, Philip
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hornby, Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Braine, Bernard
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brewis, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Frederick


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Carlisle, Mark
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Clark, Henry
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stodart, Anthony


Crouch, David
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Errington, Sir Eric
More, Jasper
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eyre, Reginald
Murton, Oscar
Wiggin, A. W.


Foster, Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wright, Esmond


Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wylie, N. R.


Gower, Raymond
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Younger, Hn. George


Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Gresham Cooke, R.
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Brian Batsford and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. John Page.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.






NOES


Archer, Peter
Eadie, Alex
Hooley, Frank


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Horner, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John
Hoy, James


Barnett, Joel
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Huckfield, Leslie


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Booth, Albert
Finch, Harold
Hunter, Adam


Boston, Terence
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kenyon, Clifford


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lawson, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Coe, Denis
Gregory, Arnold
Lestor, Miss Joan


Coleman, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)




Lomas, Kenneth


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshir, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Luard, Evan


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lubbock, Eric


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McBride, Neil


Delargy, Hugh
Hamling, William
McCann, John


Dempsey, James
Hannan, William
Macdonald, A. H.


Dewar, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Doig, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Dunn, James A.
Hazell, Bert
Mackintosh, John P.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mapp, Charles




Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Pentland, Norman
Tinn, James


Mendelson, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Millan, Bruce
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Probert, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Watkins, David (Consett)


Molloy, William
Richard, Ivor
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rose, Paul
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Neal, Harold
Sheldon, Robert
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Newens, Stan
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Julius



Oswald, Thomas
Slater, Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paget, R. T.
Small, William
Mr. Roy Roebuck and


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. Joseph Ashton.


Pavitt, Laurence
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with

at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Mellish.]

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 103.

Division No. 200.]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Neal, Harold


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Hazell, Bert
Paget, R. T.


Bishop, E. S.
Heffer, Eric S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hooley, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Horner, John
Pentland, Norman


Boston, Terence
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Boyden, James
Hoy, James
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Huckfield, Leslie
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Richard, Ivor


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul


Coe, Denis
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lawson, George
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Slater, Joseph


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Luard, Evan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ellis, John
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fined, Harold
Mendelson, John
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gregory, Arnold
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Walter Harrison.




NOES


Astor, John
Braine, Bernard
Carlisle, Mark


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Brewis, John
Clark, Henry


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clegg, Walter


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Crouch, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Currie, G. B. H.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dalkeith, Earl of


Biggs-Davison, John
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)




Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Silvester, Frederick


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. c.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper
Speed, Keith


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Stainton, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stodart, Anthony


Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott, col. Sir M.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hiley, Joseph
Pags, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian
Wiggin, A. W.


Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis
Wright, Esmond


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wylie, N. R.


Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Younger, Kn. George


Kershaw, Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kirk, Peter
Boyle, Anthony
Mr. Hector Monro and


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Timothy Kitson.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in Standing Committee), further considered.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to the unnumbered Amendment on page 4231 of the Amendment Paper, with which I suggest we take Government Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 38, 43 and 50, all of which seem to my innocent eye to be drafting Amendments.

Clause 3

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS FOR, AND TO APPROVE, PREMISES, ETC., OF EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move,
That Clause 3 be divided into two Clauses, the first consisting of page 4, lines 24 to 34, and the second of page 4, line 35, to page 5, line 14.
I think that it is suitable to take the Amendments together, because basically this is a series of drafting Amendments.
The Amendments discharge an undertaking I gave in Standing Committee that the proposed new subsection (2) of Section 19 of the 1962 Act should more properly be included in Section 20, as an hon. Member opposite had suggested. I said that his point had validity and that I thought it better to make this transfer. The series of Amendments puts the appropriate subsection in Section 20 of the 1962 Act, rather than in Section 19, and I am sure that that will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman has explained that the purpose of these Amendments is to honour an undertaking he gave in Committee and I am grateful to him for them. They fully discharge that undertaking. The point is that the sequence of requirements laid down in the Clause as it stands is unsatisfactory. We pointed out that it would make more sense if a separation of the kind now proposed was made. I am obliged to him for following our proposal.
While I appreciate his response, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not

felt able to respond in the same way to some of the proposals we made about the need to rephrase Clause 1. I hope, however, that, when the consolidating legislation which we expect sees the light of day, the whole scope of education legislation in Scotland covered by this Bill and other Acts will be much simplified.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 4, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.

No. 5, in page 4, line 26, leave out 'subsections' and insert 'subsection'.

No. 6, in page 4, line 35, leave out '(2)' and insert:
In section 20 of the principal Act (acquisition of land and execution of works), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:
'(1A).—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 10, leave out "by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
The effect of the Amendment is to remove the requirement that the form and content of all applications for approval for school building projects must be prescribed in regulations. Under the present School Building Code, which is not the subject of regulations but an administrative handbook, the matter of the form and content of applications is dealt with in this non-statutory way.
If we were to leave the Clause as it stands, we would have to prescribe the form of statutory regulation and this is obviously inflexible and unsatisfactory. It is easier to do these things by administrative document than by Statutory Instrument. The form will still be prescribed and, in accordance with Section 145 of the 1962 Act, will be prescribed by the Secretary of State. But it will not be done by way of Statutory Instrument. This is, therefore, basically a drafting Amendment to keep the requirements in line with present practice, which works satisfactorily.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

RESTRICTION OF RIGHT OF PARENT TO APPEAL REGARDING SELECTION OF COURSE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION FOR CHILD

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 29, leave out Clause 6.
This Clause 6 gave rise to a certain amount of debate on Second Reading and in Committee. I made it clear on Second Reading that it was a matter of judgment whether there should be a restriction of what is an extremely limited right of appeal to the Secretary of State by a parent who is dissatisfied with the course of education that the authority is prescribing for his child.
In view of what I said on Second Reading, I was somewhat dismayed when, during the Committee stage, the Opposition blew this up into a great issue of principle and pretended that the Clause represented a tremendous diminution of parental rights, which it did not. The number of appeals to the Secretary of State from parents against a decision about the courses to which their children had been allocated which are not made at the actual date of transfer is very small, and in the five years up to 1968 was only 23.
In any case, nearly all of those were subsequent appeals by parents who had originally appealed at the transfer stage and who had then been given certain assurances and who had appealed again when they felt that the authority had still made the wrong decision rather later in the education of the children. We are, therefore, dealing with a small number.
The Clause was included in the Bill because, as I have explained, in the comprehensive system it is difficult to make these judgments about the allocation to courses when, in any case, in some comprehensive schools the whole idea of allocation to courses is no longer a valid concept. Another reason for the introduction of the Clause was to meet practical difficulties. Nevertheless, there was obviously a feeling on Second Reading and in Committee that there might just be certain cases where that right should be maintained. I said that I would consider the matter and I have concluded that the simplest way to deal with it would be to eliminate the Clause.
I should have preferred to try to produce a rather better version of Section 29 of the 1962 Act than we now have, but the drafting is difficult. In all the circumstances, although not working completely satisfactorily, Section 29 gives a reasonable kind of practice and the simplest thing to do is to leave it alone, and therefore eliminate Clause 6.
The argument in Committee, particularly in view of what I said on Second Reading, was wildly exaggerated and I hope that the fact that we have now eliminated Clause 6 will not be represented by the Opposition as a tremendous victory, for it is not. In all the circumstances, it is simpler to eliminate Clause 6, and I now commend that course to the House.

Mr. Younger: I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment. However, I am astonished by the Under-Secretary's unfailing ability to make something sound ungracious when it does not need to be. He must admit that, in spite of what he said on Second Reading, if there had not been strong argument and pressure in Committee, which is precisely what Committee stages are for, it is extremely unlikely that he would have changed his mind.
It is most ungracious of the hon. Gentleman to make it appear that in some way we have abused the procedures of Committee by pushing this argument hard and persuading him to make the change. He is making out that he is too proud to be told that there is something slightly wrong with the Bill as introduced, and if that is so we are wasting our time by going through Bills with such care.
I do not want to be churlish in return. Most of my hon. Friends will be pleased that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the points which were put to him in Committee. As one of those who spoke on the Clause in Committee, I must say that if he had not made this change, apart from the reasons which he has adduced, it would have been not merely awkward but extremely damaging to the interests of people who had to move from one part of the country to another, possibly from England to Scotland, and who found their children in the middle of their school careers in the new area having to take a course which the parents did not regard as exactly right. It is most


important that they should not be prevented from having the right to appeal against what the new education authority in the new environment decides about a child's education.
I hope that the Minister will agree, and I say this in the most generous spirit that I can, that this has been a useful exercise, and that it is just the sort of exercise that a properly run Committee stage in a properly run House, such as this, should engage in to improve Government Bills. I welcome the Under-Secretary's conversion to the point of view put in Committee, and hope that the House will agree with him, and my hon. Friends who made the point in the first place.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and Galloway (Mr. Brewis) I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Committee, but I think that the Government are right to take this provision out of the Bill. The Under-Secretary made a case that was answered in his opening remarks, when he said that there were 23 appeals. Even if there had been one appeal to the Secretary of State that would have been a justification for taking this Clause out. It is vitally important that the rights of the subject are protected and that he should have access to the Secretary of State, who is the highest authority in Scotland in matters of appeal. The point about the move from one locality to another, put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, is another excellent reason for its deletion, and I am delighted to see that it is being removed.

Mr. Woodburn: In case my hon. Friend thinks that the Conservatives have been imagining possible reasons, I would like to assure him that in one case in my constituency this was a vital means of removing what would have been a grave injustice. A teacher had been away ill, there had been all sorts of changes in the class, and a number of children were deprived of the chance of going on to secondary education, because of the failure of the education authority to give the requisite education.
The mother complained to the headmaster, and was actually threatened with a slander action for alleging that the teacher had not done his job. Fortunately,

she appealed to the Secretary of State and an arrangement was made whereby the child went on, as arranged originally by the education authority. The children's ability proved that they were capable of taking secondary education and the appeal was justified.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: I am sorry that the Minister should have moved the Amendment in the terms which he chose. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that when we are making such good progress on Report it is regrettable that the Minister should, quite unnecessarily, introduce a note of churlish graciouslessness into his speech.
I agree very much with the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), that even if there are only one or two cases in which the parents' right of appeal is abolished, as it would be under the Bill as it stands, that would lead to great injustice.
The Under-Secretary of State made light of the effect of the Clause by saying that there were only 23 cases of appeal. I know this because I was able to elucidate that information by a Question to the Secretary of State. Indeed, when we debated this matter in Committee, it was I who called attention to the small number of appeals—only 23—over the last five years. To underline the point, I said that it was not the number of appeals which mattered. The critical factor is the existence of the right of appeal. Indeed, it is the existence of this right which has encouraged many local education authorities in Scotland themselves to review the course and the school selected for children.
Very often, Members of Parliament have complaints from constituents about the school selected for the secondary education of their children. It is often the practice of Members of Parliament, not to write to the Minister about it, but to take up the case locally with the local education authority. Very often, the local education authority says, "Of course, we will review the decision which we have made about the child after the child has spent a year or so in the secondary school." Sometimes this leads to the transfer of the child to a school which is more to the parents' choice. This is encouraged by the existence of that right.
There is another point. I suggest that as comprehensive education develops in Scotland it will be necessary for parents to have the right of appeal—

Mr. Woodburn: The Minister agrees.

Mr. MacArthur: Yes, but in such churlish terms that it is reasonable that we should explain why we believe it to be right that the Clause should be deleted.
I remind hon. Members opposite that when we raised the matter in Committee, there were only four Labour Members of Parliament present. Indeed, we were forced to call attention to the small attendance by Labour Members so that the sitting was suspended and the Government Whip went out to fetch other Labour Members in, because we were defending an important principle: the right of appeal which parents had enjoyed. Certainly, the Minister has accepted our view by reintroducing the right of appeal.
It is reasonable that having put our names to the Government Amendment, we should explain why we believe it to be right that the Clause should be removed from the Bill. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was certainly an assiduous attender in Committee. He spoke repeatedly, and we were delighted to see him, but he was one of only four at the time. There are many other hon. Members opposite present tonight who did not hear the arguments advanced in Committee. I see no reason why I should not advance them again, and I will do so briefly.
It is important that this right of appeal should be preserved as the comprehensive system develops. We know from the Minister that he now recognises that selectivity in education is no longer a sin, as it used to be in his eyes, and that there will be selectivity of one kind or another in the comprehensive system. It follows that children in many comprehensive schools will move from one course to another during their secondary education, and it seems reasonable to us on this side that parents should continue to enjoy the right of appeal which previously they had enjoyed in Scotland. Many parents may think that the course selected for their child is inappropriate,

so it is reasonable to protect the right of appeal.
We are also trying to encourage industrial development in Scotland. Both sides of the House want this and are agreed that it must involve mobility of labour. People will move to better jobs, taking their children to the area of another local education authority—many of them in midstream in their education—and the parents should not be denied the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, if they do not like the choice of education in the new area. Many people return to Scotland from abroad. It is likely that, when a Conservative Government are elected, many thousands of people who have emigrated from Scotland under this Government will want to return, bringing children of school age. They should have this right of appeal.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has seen reason at last. I regret that he spoke in that churlish way, but I am grateful to him for responding, even with that lack of grace, to our powerful arguments in Committee.

Mr. Millan: I deliberately introduced the Amendment in the way that I did, because of the background to it and because of the amount of humbug with which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke about it in Committee. When winding up the Second Reading debate, in answer to the point of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) I specifically said:
… I have some sympathy with the points which the right hon. Gentleman made, and I look forward to having the matter debated in Committee. To my mind, it is by no means a question on which the balance comes down wholly on one side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 374.]
I think that that was a reasonable and gracious way in which to answer those points on Second Reading.
Nevertheless, in Committee, before I even had a chance to speak about this matter, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire made a speech full of humbug, talking about Ministers' "total carelessness" about the wishes of parents, and how the freedom of parents was being eroded by the Bill. If he wishes to talk about gracelessness, I could quote many examples from his own speeches in Committee. So I said today that I


was not going to have this change made out as being a tremendous victory for the Opposition against a dogmatic Minister who was determined to erode the freedom of parents and who was forced into a concession only by the brilliant speeches of hon. Members opposite.
That is a complete travesty of the situation. If the hon. Member thinks that I will let him get away with that, he will believe anything. That is why I spoke as I did. I am delighted that we are now in a state of amity and brotherhood and can now accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that he did little in Committee to win any confidence from us that he had any belief in parental freedom of choice. Our debates, up to column 400, on this matter were concerned largely with the removal of parental freedom of choice. Nothing the Government said in the early debates on the Bill gave us any confidence in the Minister's interest in parental freedom of choice, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is making a long intervention.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Mr. Wright: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 9, line 25, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
This is a somewhat familiar phrase both in the House and in Committee, but I will try to ring a few changes on the usual form in which the proposal is made. In this Clause we reach what is, next to the unfortunate and contentious Caluse 1, the major Clause of the Bill, and one which I believe in history, if I may refer to that subject in the light of remarks this afternoon, will perhaps become a most important feature of this legislation.
There are some compelling reasons why the House should be reminded—members of the Standing Committee will not need reminding—of the reasons why we pressed this matter to a Division in Committee. Unless my colleagues and I are satisfied tonight, we shall press it again.
We are suggesting a single word change because we believe that it will strengthen the Act and the right hon. Gentleman's own powers under the Act. The Minister's explanation at the end of the Committee stage was somewhat tortuous—I think that I quote him correctly—that "may" really includes "shall". I can only say that to me that does not make grammatical sense, though it may make some sort of tortuous administrative sense to him.
May I suggest some reasons why I believe that the Act would be strengthened if the word "shall" were used? I accept that the Minister did not make this point—at least to my recollection—but it is the new Section 63, which follows this Section, which causes the difficulty about the choice of a compulsive word against a permissive word, because in Section 63 there is to be power as regards children who have not reached the age of five but a duty in respect of children over the age of five. I presume that it is the extension of an interest in handicapped children before the age of five which leads the Minister to have this rather general power rather than a power of compulsion.
May I rehearse for the Minister—he will not need too many of these reminders—some of the reasons why, in Committee, we said that this proposal would strengthen the Bill? In all the previous Acts, including the Act which we are amending—the 1962 Act, which was itself a derivative of earlier Acts—the word "shall" appears. I should like to hear the Minister explain—we were not told in Committee—why there should be this change, which, in our view, weakens his powers and what the authorities can do under the Act. The Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, used the same word.
Over the last 15 to 18 years—this is in no sense a partisan matter—there have been a great number of working party reports on the whole problem of handicapped and maladjusted children, and if a single theme has appeared from them, we all agree, on both sides of the House, that it has been in the direction of early diagnosis and treatment. I will specify only one tragedy for many families—deafness, which, if not discovered early enough,


can often appear to be mental retardation. It is very important, particularly for Grade 3 deaf children, that they should be found to be deaf as early as possible.
Now, there is a phenomenon today. Wherever there is maladjustment, or physical or mental handicap, or deafness, maternal care somehow increases in proportion to the degree of trouble in the family, and sometimes I believe that parents—particularly mothers—are ultra-maternal. We are on an important point here. I believe that the Social Work (Scotland) Act, and the provisions of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be stronger if there is a chance, particularly for G.P.s, to be able to have contact with schools or school doctors before the age of 5 so that it is possible for some degree of early diagnosis to take place.
11.0 p.m.
Let me, further, put to the Minister a point which I put in Committee. It is very important that this piece of legislation should attract the interest of the teaching profession. I do not need to remind him of the gloomy statistics—the fact that as of January, 1968, there were 731 certificated teachers employed in special schools, whether education authority or grant aided, and that 53 per cent. of these were over the age of 50, and only 8 per cent. under the age of 30.
Again, in Committee we rehearsed this point. It would strengthen the Minister's powers of recruitment of teachers—and these figures will become steadily worse as the years pass—if there were this element of compulsion and the word "shall" were there instead of the word "may".
My final point is that it is also important that we should enlist in this field the voluntary societies that are very much concerned, and, indeed, have been the pacemakers where Scotland is concerned. I know that this is an issue which interests some hon. Gentlemen opposite in a very real sense—

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have your guidance on what is in order under this Amendment? All we are asked to discuss is whether there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations defining several categories of pupils, and to make special

regulations, or whether it should be left to the Secretary of State. Instead of this we are getting one of these sweeping professorial surveys of the world in which nothing very definite is said on the specific point under discussion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in the sense that we are discussing whether it should be mandatory or not, but I have not yet decided that the hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Wright: I was coming to my final point, that by introducing this element of compulsion the Act would be stronger. It would enlist the already active work of the voluntary societies. I was about to pay a tribute, before I was interrupted, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who put his name to this particular proposal during the Committee stage. I mention this simply to emphasise that this is a bipartisan indication of our wish to strengthen this bit of legislation. It is an important proposal. I shall be very interested to hear from the Minister, but without satisfaction on it I am bound to say that this merits a decision.

Mr. Hannan: On a point of order. I wish to make it clear that without any consultation, bipartisanship or agreement about names going to the Amendment, it just so happens that I did put down an Amendment quite unknown to the hon. Gentleman. There was no collusion. I want to make this clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the House quite understands.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) is not going to subject us to the debate which I have heard for 30 years on "may" and "shall". As the Secretary of State I have had to defend the use of "may".
The hon. Gentleman's argument did not seem to have anything to do with whether it was "may" or "shall". He said that this would increase the power of the Secretary of State. How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at that conclusion? By the use of "may", the Secretary of State has power to do something if he so desires, but the obligation is laid upon the local authorities to do something, and


the hon. Gentleman is insisting that the Secretary of State should tell them how to do it.
The Secretary of State may have to do that if the local authorities do not do what they are required to do, but the duty is placed on the local authorities by the use of the word "shall". The Secretary of State is asked to intervene only if he finds it necessary to do so.
I hope that the House will not have to suffer this argument again. I agree that this side of the House has been responsible for many hours of debate on this subject, but hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that they have some intelligence, and some sense of business-like procedure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not business-like to waste time on this issue. The two words mean the same when used in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Millan: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) put the matter very well, because in this context "may" and "shall" mean virtually the same.
What the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) said about early assessment, the rôle of voluntary societies, and so on, may be true and commendable, but it has little or nothing to do with the Amendment. I remind the House that what we are doing here is restating in modern form the provisions of the 1962 Act dealing with handicapped children.
The modern practice in legislation of this sort is to use the word "may" rather than "shall". I need not go into an authoritative statement by quoting references from other statutes, because we use the word "may" in other parts of the Bill. For example, in the new Section 2 of the 1962 Act, which deals with the standards and general requirements "to which every education authority shall conform in discharge of their functions under section 1 of this Act" the phrase used is that the Secretary of State "may make regulations". To allow that to go through and then to quibble about the use of the word "may" here, when all that we are dealing with is defining the categories of pupils requiring special education, seems extraordinary and quite absurd.
It is not as though there were not in existence regulations which do precisely what the Secretary of State is given power to do in this Clause. It is not a question of the Secretary of State being unwilling to make regulations and requiring an injunction of Parliament to force him, willing as he may be, to make these regulations. The present regulations date from as far back as 1954. I am referring to the Special Education Treatment (Scotland) Regulations, 1954. What is more, these regulations are specifically preserved by paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, which is the transitional Schedule. There is, therefore, no question whether the regulations may be made. They were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite as far back as 1954, and I think that that exposes the absurdity of the argument that we have heard this evening.
All that we are dealing with is the wording of the Clause, and we are here following modern practice in using the word "may" and not "shall". There is nothing sinister about this. This argument has been gone over many times in the past, and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is not necessary to make the change they propose. If the wording is changed here, the Clause will be inconsistent with everything that is otherwise stated in the Bill, and as no good comes from doing that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter and withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Younger: The Minister has produced a most interesting doctrine. However, I am not completely sold on either word. On his argument, if the putting in of the word "shall" would make no difference because the regulations are made already, and if the regulations are preserved in Schedule 4, what is the point of the new Section 62? It would appear that it is providing for something which is already provided and which is preserved already in Schedule 4.

Mr. Millan: It is necessary because we are eliminating the previous provision in the 1962 Act and restating it in more modern drafting terms—and, as I understand it, with the agreement of the House. Therefore, it is necessary to have it, but the practical position is not changed.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate that intervention, but it still seems very odd, and the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be slightly inconsistent.
It was delightful to see the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in the rôle of poacher turned gamekeeper. He has spent longer arguing "may" and "shall" than any other hon. Member on either side of the House. I take it that his new rôle means that never again will he feel it necessary to argue the merits of "may" and "shall". He has now said that it is a sterile and useless argument which should not be pursued.

Mr. Willis: I was always engaged in an argument of substance, and I always kept strictly to the point.

Mr. Younger: That is probably the most startling statement to come from either side. I could spend two hours proving with chapter and verse that the right hon. Gentleman's claim is quite unfounded, but I do not want to waste the time of the House.
The doctrine that "may" and "shall" mean the same will lead us into some very strange arguments in future Bills. It would be better to acknowledge that there is a difference, and state quite clearly that "may" is now the modern way of putting it. I am certain that we shall find a difference in future Bills.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The Minister is rather optimistic in using the covering phrase "modern drafting" for this wording. I have never believed that "may" and "shall" mean the same. In this case, it is true that the duty of local authorities is laid down by regulations, but what the Minister has failed to remember is that it is only a few years since the children with whom we are dealing came under these regulations for the first time.
There was a definite delay on the part of local authorities in making what was considered to be adequate provision, and some authorities took much longer to do so than others. I do not think that the Minister will quarrel with that factual statement. If the regulations applicable at the time had been in the permissive form of this Clause, there would

have been further delay in identifying these children and getting special provision for them.
The Under-Secretary may assume that adequate provision is now made for these children and that the general public recognise the need for speedy identification, but I wonder whether he really thinks that to be the case. A whole range of new factors enters into the subject including, for example, defective children, for whom almost no provision has been made.
Some local authorities will be quicker than others in providing for these new factors as and when they come within the scope of medical knowledge, and it may well be useful for the Secretary of State to have in the Measure the word we suggest rather than the word already written in. If the change in the wording means a difference of even six months in the education of these children it is well worth making.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will treat this Amendment a little more seriously, and realise that there is substance in it.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Although I have not heard the entire debate, I have had the good fortune to hear both the Minister and the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and I am sure that most of the main points will have been covered by them. The word "shall" would place a clear obligation on the Secretary of State to do something very quickly, and to make sure that there is a regular requirement for this defining to be done.
I have in mind not so much the need to make special provision, but the question of where one should draw the line where special provision is required. Many hon. Members will have been interested in a very important case which has been considered recently in Glasgow to decide whether a child needed special education or could be accommodated in a normal school—

Mr. Millan: That has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain how it does not


have anything to do with the Amendment. The Bill states that the Secretary of State
… may make regulations defining the several categories of pupils requiring special education …".
I therefore think that the case has particular relevance. When one defines categories, one draws lines.
I am well aware of the very excellent facilities that are provided in special schools. I have been round some of them in Glasgow. Many of us are proud of the very special provision made for special individual cases of physical disability and other disabilities. Because of the great advances made in this direction in recent years there has been a tendency to try to draw lines in such a way that we do not make special provision for these children who have these disabilities, but who could attend normal schools.
If the Amendment were accepted, it would be a clear message from this side and, I am sure, from many hon. Members opposite, that we not only want these regulations brought forward, but, perhaps, redefined. There have been conflicting views in the Glasgow case I have mentioned, a great deal of sentiment and of reconsideration of the functions of the special schools, and a feeling that the time may have come for redefinition.
If we want to redefine it means making new regulations. If we incorporate in the Bill that the Secretary of State "shall" make regulations there will be an obligation on him to do this regularly as and when required. I hope that the Glasgow case will make the Government and those with special knowledge of these matters in the S.E.D. think carefully again about the question of defining the category. Our aim should be that as many children as possible, bearing in mind physical, mental and other abilities, should be in normal schools and as few as possible in special schools.
Without seeking to detract from the excellent work done for handicapped children, it is very important for the welfare of all the children concerned that we should be seen to be trying to bring as many as possible, irrespective of minor handicaps, into normal schools. We have discussed comprehensive schools. It would not be in order to go into that again, but it was emphasised

that the aim of education of all sorts in Scotland was to try to have a community type of school where children who are less gifted and those who are more gifted can come together and benefit. If we are looking for an ideal kind of community school, a basic feature should be that of having as many children with different abilities and differences in faculties both mental and physical coming in.
The implications of the important case in Glasgow should make the Under-Secretary think carefully again about whether there is a case for redefining categories.

Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Member now prepared to admit the principle against which he and the Opposition argued earlier?

Mr. Taylor: I have been careful not to go beyond the boundary of order, but the hon. Member is trying to draw me over it. If he gained the impression that I said I was in favour of universal territorial comprehensive schools, that was not my intention. I pointed out that the hon. Member has put forward an argument for a community school—many hon. Members hold these views sincerely—and when applying the argument to ranges of ability, it should include ability of handicapped children.
Although the Under-Secretary replied in a courteous way as he always does to questions of this sort, he did not realise the full implications of what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) had said. We say that there is a case now for reconsidering the question of redefining. That is why I should like the word "shall" to be used. "May" is inadequate. We want to show a clear guiding light emphasising that the time has come for the Minister to make regulations, that he shall make them and keep in mind the possibility, desirability and significance of redefining the special categories of pupils who require special education. I hope that he will reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I have become increasingly impressed by the arguments which have been advanced in support of the Amendment, in particular by the arguments which have just been advanced by my hon. Friend


the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). The Minister seemed to base his argument on the contention that it was modern practice to have "may" and old-fashioned to have "shall". That is not an adequate explanation or justification. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that we must have "may" because it is trendy, ton-up and mod. There are many things which are trendy, ton-up and mod, but which some of us do not like—for instance S.E.T. I have no doubt that the Minister would justify that as being trendy, ton-up and mod, but it is not a sufficient justification for us. The Minister must produce a more logical reason why the House should reject the very reasonable case which has been made.
The Minister's only other argument—that it would be wrong to change "may" to "shall" in this Clause when the Bill is littered with "may's" elsewhere—is not valid, because this Clause is of special importance and sensitivity. There was much in the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart about the need to keep in the Secretary of State's mind at all times the possible desirability of redefining the regulations. I was especially impressed by what my hon. Friend said about the children who are on the borderline of being handicapped. This struck a special chord with me, because I have very direct personal involvement in such a case in my family with a child who, due to deafness, may or may not be over the borderline.
I agree with everything my hon. Friend said about the importance of trying to ensure, wherever possible, that such children should be able to be educated in the normal school. This is precisely the area where a need to keep a close watch on the regulations and a constant willingness to consider the case for redefining them by the Secretary of State is so important. That is why there is in this instance alone a good case for substituting "shall" for "may", to pinpoint in the mind of the Secretary of State and of the S.E.D. the importance of keeping this issue constantly under review.
For these reasons, I hope that the Under-Secretary will think again. I trust that he will advance a better explanation than that he advanced earlier,

which was that "may" was fuddy-duddy but "shall" was with-it.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I shall not go over the question of drafting practice, but I have two other points to make. First, on the question of flexibility and the need to keep the regulations up to date—which I entirely accept—it does not make the slightest difference whether we put in "shall" or "may". If we say here that the Secretary of State shall do something, rather than just have power to do it, all he would have to do to meet that injunction would be to produce regulations once. That is all. He would not have to keep them up to date or redefine them from time to time.
In any case, the regulations have already been made. Therefore, all that hon. Members are saying, in effect, is, "Have another look at the 1954 regulations and see whether they should be brought up to date". In fact, the matter is already under constant consideration. Moreover, we are providing a whole new Clause of about 11 pages to improve ascertainment procedures, to give better appeal procedures for parents, and the rest. It is absurd in these circumstances to suggest that we are not aware of the need to keep the regulations up to date.
However, if it helps the House, I give an undertaking that when the Bill goes through I shall look at the regulations again. If I feel that they need redefining, I shall be happy to do that. But, as I say, whether we put in "may" or "shall" makes no difference whatever in the long term from the point of view of keeping the regulations up to date.
Now, a word about the case in Glasgow to which the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred. Lest there be any misunderstanding or any suggestion that changing the wording here would make the slightest difference in a case of that sort, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I know that case very well. I have read the lengthy note and interim judgment of the sheriff on the case. It is a long and interesting document, and I have read the entire note. I assure the House that the argument with which we are dealing now is absolutely irrelevant to what might have happened in the case of the boy Charles Dornan of Glasgow.


That ought to be put on record in case there is any feeling that, by sticking on this point, one is in some material regard making it more difficult to deal with borderline cases. That is not so at all. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
The point is a narrow one. For the reasons which I have already explained, we ought to stick to the wording as we have it in the Bill.

Mr. MacArthur: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and the House will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for referring so sympathetically and helpfully to the Glasgow case, a very worrying case, to which my hon. Friend referred. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman also for saying that he will look at the regulations again in response to the debate tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) reminded us that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had trodden this ground before. It is a well trodden path indeed. I recall his long speeches, delivered so quietly, on the great question of "may" or "shall" in a Bill. When he himself referred to those many occasions in the past, I was reminded of the medieval chronicler who recorded the appearance of a creature from a loch in the West of Scotland, concluding his note by writing, "This creature has been seen before, and always great trouble for Scotland thereafter". This creature has been seen before many times in Scottish Committees, with great and lengthy troubled debates thereafter.
The question before us is of a different order. This is not a trivial game of words. There is here a matter of very real substance which the House should consider sympathetically. The point the Minister and other hon. Members opposite have perhaps overlooked is that what we are doing in the Clause is not to introduce a new proposal. We are not now considering a new Bill, which was the case when the right hon. Gentleman caused all the trouble in days gone by. We are considering what is in effect an amendment to an existing Statute. The opening words of the Clause remind us

that what follows replaces Sections 62 to 66 of the principal Act, the Act of 1962. It is for that reason that I believe the Amendment has special merit.
The Clause deals with a particularly sensitive part of the Bill—the problem of handicapped children and the sort of education they should receive. As we enter this part of the Bill we all recognise that no question of principle divides the parties; on this part of the legislation we are at one. It is because this is so important and so sensitive an area that the opening words of the Clause should not in any way represent a weakening of the Secretary of State's involvement with this essential aspect of education.
In Committee I referred from time to time to the difficulty that would confront local education authorities, officers of local authorities, and people outside generally—not least, perhaps, parents of handicapped children, who will study the Bill when it becomes an Act. They will turn to Section 10, and it will refer them to the 1962 Act. They will at once see a change in the wording. That change may seem trivial to us in the House who understand these things so well, but it will be critical to people outside when they see that the obligation on the Secretary of State has been removed. The "shall" has been changed to "may"; the requirement has become a matter of permissiveness, and no more.
It is just because those words appear at the beginning of this critical part of the Act that I believe we should take particular care before we change them. If the Minister is trying to be trendy as my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) suggested, this is not the moment, and this is certainly not the part of the Bill in which to be trendy. The moment for that might well come when we have the consolidated legislation to which all of us look forward.
We are making for so much confusion now. We are making life more difficult for the people outside who must handle such legislation. We shall make for greater confusion if we make a change of wording which, first, is totally unnecessary, and, second, is substantially misleading to those who have to interpret the laws passed by this House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 201.]
AYES
[11.38 p.m.


Astor, John
Hawkins, Paul
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Holland, Philip
Royle, Anthony


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Braine, Bernard
Jopling, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Brewis, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Kirk, Peter
Speed, Keith


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Carlisle, Mark
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Clark, Henry
More, Jasper
Weatherill, Bernard


Clegg, Walter
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, A. W.


Eyre, Reginald
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wright, Esmond


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Gower, Raymond
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Grant, Anthony
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Hector Monro.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis





NOES


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
Newens, Stan


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooley, Frank
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Coe, Denis
Horner, John
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rose, Paul


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hoy, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hunter, Adam
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Tinn, James


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Luard, Evan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
McCann, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Macdonald, A. H.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackintosh, John P.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert



Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Neil McBride.


Forrester, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Motion made, and Question put, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. Millan.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 70, Noes 82.

The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 72.

Forrester, John
Luard, Evan
Richard, Ivor


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rose, Paul


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCann, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hannan, William
Macdonald, A. H.
Sheldon, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Mackintosh, John P.
Slater, Joseph


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Small, William


Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hooley, Frank
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Horner, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hoy, James
Newens, Stan
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Huckfield, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Astor, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hawkins, Paul
Royle, Anthony


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hutch son, Michael Clark
Silvester, Frederick


Brewis, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Carlisle, Mark
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Clark, Henry
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Clegg, Walter
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eyre, Reginald
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wright, Esmond


Goodhart, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Percival, Ian



Gower, Raymond
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Jasper More and


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pym, Francis
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SPRING TRAPS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — UNION MEMBERSHIP (PERSONAL CASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.58 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the servants of the House for raising an Adjournment debate at so late an hour, and I am sorry for myself, too, but I wish to raise a case of petty trade union

tyranny against a constituent of mine which has been going on for 18 years, and which I am sure responsible trade union officials would not wish to continue. I have been in correspondence with the Ministry for many years about the case and we have got no further, so I promised my constituent that I would raise it in the House, and I feel morally bound to do so.
The man is so nervous about his future employment that he has begged me not to disclose his name. All other particulars I am prepared to give, and his name and address are known to the Ministry. This constituent was trained in a Leicester training centre in 1951 and passed out as a trainee fitter, first-class, in that year. He tried to get a job when he was discharged and was unable to do so because he could not obtain membership of the A.E.U. I did my best for him in 1952, and, as a result of the publicity given to his case, the local officials


softened their attitude and allowed him to earn a living.
For eight years he carried on his job as a fitter-turner and did excellent work, which is a tribute to the training which he had received. Then the firm closed down and he had to seek another job. Luckily, he got an appropriate job with the Central Electricity Generating Board. The union gave him a Section I card, which made him a full member, but after he had been only a week in his job the local official demanded his card back. This made it impossible for the man to get the proper job for which he was qualified.
He is not an anti-trade unionist. He wants to join the union and to be a good fee-paying member. After he had been in his latest job for only a week, the local secretary demanded his card back and said that he would be classed as a dilutee. That was after he had done six years of practical work, which seemed to him a grave injustice and makes the training centre certificate almost worthless. But he liked the trade and decided to stick to it. The people in the power station said that he was a good man. From time to time when the charge hand was not there he was made charge hand, he was such a good fellow and did his work so well.
Then, there was another change and a new charge hand had to be appointed. He applied for the post but did not get it. That was the luck of the draw. But the A.E.U. shop steward got the job and then told this man that he would not take orders from a trainee. This is the trouble: the man is classed almost as a second-class citizen—a trainee. The shop steward suggested to the others that they should treat him the same.
The man would not accept what he calls the victimisation which resulted and he appealed to me again. He is now with the Grimsby power station, which may be closed before long. He has been offered other jobs because of his good record. He is a good workman, no trouble with his workmates and perfectly satisfactory to his employers. But because he will not be given his full trade union membership card, he cannot get a proper job. It is against this petty tyranny that I want to protest on his behalf.
I come to the background of this matter. Back in 1952, the local paper said this of him:
Though he holds a Government certificate of proficiency, which seems to qualify him for a skilled job"—
Mr. X—
has tried in vain since March to get work as a centre lathe turner. He went through the Ministry of Labour training course. 'Then', he said, 'my troubles began. After starting with a job in a non-union house I found nobody would take me on without a union card. What it amounts to is that I cannot get a job without a card and the Amalgamated Engineering Union refuses me a card unless I have a job. If the Government vocational training scheme is producing any more dead-end kids like this, it is wasting public money'".
That is the protest I make. The report continued:
A Ministry of Labour spokesman said in London last night
—this was in 1952—
The engineering unions co-operate closely with the department in placing trainees. Cases of difficulty occasionally arise, however …
I know of 5,000 cases, from the Department. The newspaper report continues:
and the Ministry will certainly inquire into this particular case".
That was in 1952. They are still inquiring. They have still done nothing for my constituent, who feels that he has been unfairly victimised.
In 1960 my constituent wrote this letter to me:
In 1952 you made it possible for me to obtain work in the engineering industry by forcing the A.E.U. to honour its agreement
—that is what I am after: that they should honour their agreement with successive Governments—
by making me a member after I had taken a Government training course. The work I obtained after that I held for five years until the power station, at which I was, closed. I applied for skilled work with the Electricity Generating Board and was selected from a number of other applicants. Immediately the union knew about this they made the employer sign a paper to say that if there were any redundancy I should be the first to go. This situation will arise in the next few years. I am not upset about this, but it means in fact I can never settle in any job no matter how good I may be.
That seems grossly unfair. He continued:
But the A.E.U. rule book clearly states that a man can enter section 1—full membership—if he produces satisfactory evidence of having worked five years at one or more of the fully skilled trades—


He has been doing it for 17 years, but according to my constituent the rule book says that after five years he is entitled to a full membership card. He has done 17 years and he is still victimised and still denied the right to earn his living.
He said:
—of which I have done eight years.
—at that time.
I applied and got section 1 membership, but later it was taken back from me. I do not know if I am blacklisted because you helped me before.
If that is so, it is a scandal and a reflection on membership of the House.
Over the years I have done my best to help this man. I put down a Question to the Minister on Monday, 22nd January last year to ask
… which of the craft trade unions have guaranteed to him that they will accept for membership of their union men who become competent through the Government training centres, and be allowed to fill the skilled jobs for which they have been properly trained.
That is the raison d'être for the centres. If when they have passed through the centres, the men are not allowed to get their cards and are not allowed to earn their living through the skills which they have acquired, then we are wasting public money in keeping these centres open.
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
All the unions concerned with the acceptance of men trained at Government Training Centres are co-operating at national level.
That is true. There is no trouble at national level. The trouble is at local level. He continued:
They are unable to guarantee that all such trainees will be accepted by their district committees or local branches, but in fact very few trainees are prevented by trade union opposition from taking up employment in their training trades."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 23–24.]
The trouble is at local level. It is with the little local Hitlers—and I do not say that offensively—the little men who abuse the power which they have, against the wishes and traditions of the trade unions. I cannot see any responsible trade union official wanting to deny a trainee the right to earn his living.
I have a letter of 15th May, 1968, in which the Government say there are 5,000 cases in the country of this nature, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary says there are very few cases. There are 5,000 cases known to the Ministry at the

present time who, like my constituent, are denied the right to a living.
To support his case, my constituent produced a letter from the Central Electricity Generating Board dated 30th January last year, which says
You will know that you have been employed as a mechanical fitter since February 1958
that is his second job
and the superintendent has been satisfied with your work as a fitter and has upgraded you to chargehand on a number of occasions. Your exact status in your union is a matter for the union to decide, but the Board regards you as a skilled craftsman.
If after 16, 17 or 18 years a man is regarded as a skilled craftsman, it is a scandal that he is not allowed by some local official to earn his living and act as a skilled man. He wrote to me again on 22nd April this year, because the man is worried almost out of his wits by his own future and the future of his wife and children, and he says
After 17 years as a skilled man I am still smitten by a dilutee tag, as the superintendent said he could sack me tomorrow and start a new apprentice and have the backing of the A.E.U. When I asked him to prove this, he showed me a letter from the A.E.U. telling him they could supply him with a time-served man.
This is unfair to the type of good men being turned out of the training centres.
I then had a letter from the Ministry of Labour dated 15th May, 1968, when I had raised the matter again privately. I have a long list of correspondence on this case. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say this:
I was greatly distressed to learn of Mr. X's difficulties.
I should think he jolly well ought to be. This is 16 years after the man had qualified and been passed out as a good craftsman. This is the core of the problem, and this is on the Department's own paper
Grimsby is, I am afraid, one of a number of areas, of which the worst are Manchester, Tyneside and Scotland, in which there has been some resistance to particular grades of Government Training Centre trainees, especially general fitters and centre lathe turners. It is still true that very few trainees in Great Britain as a whole are, in fact, prevented by trade union opposition from working in their training trades.
In one paragraph of the letter it says there are very few, but later on in the


same letter it says there are 5,000 of them. The letter goes on
Official T.U.C. policy is doing its best to overcome such resistance
I am grateful for that, and I believe they are honest in their attempts at headquarters to end this scandal—
and to this end has gone on record in the T.U.C. Economic Review of 1968 as saying: 'There is no justification for any general bar on the acceptance of adult trainees in any area of the country'.
This is what the T.U.C. believes. The Parliamentary Secretary then adds:
It would, however, be unrealistic to expect attitudes of those areas which tend to be resistant to certain categories of G.T.C. trainees to change overnight.
It is ridiculous to talk about their attitude changing overnight when in this case I have been pressing for 16, 17 or 18 years, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that my constituent has shown the greatest patience in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
There has recently been a certain amount of criticism within the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers itself of this system, and I understand that the A.E.F.'s Conference in Eastbourne during the last week in April a move to give immediate skilled status to 5,000 dilutees"—
that is the 5,000 which the Department acknowledges—
and at the same time to end the Dilution Agreement, was narrowly defeated.
This is the tragedy. Responsible trade union leaders want to put this injustice right, but certain of the irresponsibles will not let them do it. The letter goes on to say:
Had it been successful, it would have regularised the position of existing dilutees without, however, providing any safeguards to future G.T.C. entrants into the engineering industry.
All I am saying is that the 5,000 admitted by the Department shows the size of the national problem. I am speaking for my own constituent.
My constituent wrote to the Department of Employment and Productivity, and on 27th May last year he received this extraordinary reply:
The real difficulty is, as you know, that under the long-standing Dilution Agreement … men who have acquired their knowledge of a skilled trade through G.T.C. training have no automatic right to full skilled membership.

This is what I am asking for, that they should have an automatic right, because if they do not they are denied the right to earn a living by using the skills which the Government have given them.
The letter went on to say:
… it is our hope that it will make helpful recommendations … that men trained at G.T.C.s are fully accepted as skilled after a reasonable period of practical experience in industry.
The trade union course is 5 years. I do not know what the Department thinks about this, but my man has had 17 years' experience. Does not the Minister think that a card ought to be granted to him?
My constituent was not satisfied, and he wrote to the Department again. In its reply of 26th June the Department put its finger on the matter when it wrote to my constituent:
I do not think I can explain the findings of the Royal Commission's Report, insofar as they affect your particular position, better than by quoting the relevant passage in paragraphs 345 to 348. It runs as follows:
'Paragraph 345. We had evidence from a number of sources of obstacles being placed in the way of employment as skilled workers of persons trained at Government Training Centres.
Paragraph 346. We find it deplorable that such difficulties should be encountered'.
I say a hearty "hear, hear" to that on behalf of my constituent.
Paragraph 347. We think it wrong"—
and I agree—
that dilutees should be regarded as a class whose status, work and pay can at any time be drastically reduced.
Finally, the letter said:
The recommendation about an appeal procedure in cases of arbitrary refusal of admission to a trade union, or the skilled section of a union, would require legislation, and the Government will announce in due course, in the light of consultations, its decision about whether to introduce legislation on these lines.
When are we to get that legislation? That is a promise that it is to come. When will it be introduced so that this injustice can be put right?
My man is frightened of losing his job. He is frightened of giving his name. At the end of a long letter to me he said:
… if you get me full union recognition and get rid of the dilutee tag I think after all this time I shall believe in miracles again.
He is a human man who will say that.
I beg the Minister, because of his own recollection of unemployment in Jarrow


when he was a boy, to help men like this to obtain proper union cards which will enable them to earn decent livings.

12.20 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): I have, of course, some sympathy with the constituent of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). But I hope that he will appreciate that he supported a Government from 1951 until 1964 when his constituent suffered the same disability that he has raised tonight, and although I am sure his Government shared his feelings about what he regards as the great injustice to his constituent, even his Government were not able in the period from 1951 to 1964 to do anything which would remove his constituent's grievance.
So I think that we start off by accepting that this is not a problem which has arisen as a consequence of the indifference of this Government—

Sir C. Osborne: Agreed.

Mr. Fernyhough: It has been with us throughout the post-war years.
However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will readily accept that his Private Notice Question about training centres was, to put it mildly, exaggerated He must know that 75 per cent. of the men who go through training centres are placed in positions before they leave the training centres. Another 15 per cent. are placed within three months of leaving the training centres. By and large, I hope that he will not again suggest that we should close down the training centres—

Sir C. Osborne: I am not saying that.

Mr. Fernyhough: But the hon. Gentleman has suggested this.

Sir C. Osborne: No.

Mr. Fernyhough: He must never suggest it. We are looking at a relatively small problem, although I accept that, within these numbers, there is great human anxiety and apprehension. We are desperately anxious to resolve the problem.
The hon. Gentleman read paragraphs 345, 347 and 348 of the Donovan Report. Perhaps I might read a little of the White Paper, "In Place of Strife".
which deals with problems of this kind and gives an idea of what the Government intend to do in the forthcoming legislation.
On adult training, paragraph 51 says:
Both the Government and industry already train adults to the skilled level, and the need for this will continue to grow. However, in the engineering industry in particular, all such trainees are normally registered as 'dilutees' and opposition is still found in some areas to allowing them to exercise fully the skills they have acquired, or to have the appropriate status when they are empoyed on skilled work. … Acceptance of adult trainees is important not only in order to improve industrial efficiency and regional development, but also to ensure to all employees the right to advance themselves by training.
Paragraph 52 goes on:
The Government attaches great importance to the review of dilution agreements to ensure that they do not impede the acceptance of adults trained to the skilled level (including Government Training Centre trainees). It believes that the least that is required now is the freer implementation of existing dilution agreements, but also that in the longer term these should be replaced by more flexible arrangements designed to see that men and women are employed according to their ability to do skilled jobs. For this reason the Government has welcomed the recent statement by the Central Training Council on the urgent need to develop new attitudes to training for skilled work, and is discussing with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. the best way of making progress, on the problem of adult trainees. In addition it will be open to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Central Training Council to seek the advice of the C.I.R. on the industrial relations aspects of training problems, including dilution agreements.
Paragraph 114 reads:
These reforms will provide additional safeguards for union members"—
and the hon. Member's constituent is a union member:
and do much to enable unions themselves to escape unjustified suspicions, but for men to be seen to deal fairly with members it is necessary that the administration of their rules should be subject to independent review. This does not imply that there is any reason to suspect frequent injustice, any more than the creation of the Parliamentary Commissionery implies that maladministration is common in Government Departments. But it is right and healthy in a democracy that any powerful body should be subject to outside scrutiny where abuse of its power can most harm the individual.
Paragraph 115 states:
Complaints against trade unions by individuals who have no access to, or have exhausted, the union's own appeals procedure will be considered in the first instance by the Registrar"—


This would be the case:
who will have the duty of advising the complainants and trying to promote an amicable settlement. In some cases where this cannot be achieved there is already a legal remedy in the ordinary courts, but in others there is no remedy at present. The Industrial Relations Bill will provide that complaints by individuals of unfair or arbitrary action by trade unions resulting in substantial injustice may be referred to the Industrial Board referred to in paragraph 62.
Paragraph 116 states:
In cases heard by the Board, every opportunity will be given to the trade unions concerned to prepare their own answers to complaints. The object will be to ensure fair play and justice, rather than to put obstacles in the way of unions. If complaints are found to be justified, the Board will have power to award damages, or admission or re-instatement in a union.
What we have said in the White Paper will go a very long way towards meeting this problem, but the hon. Member must

understand that much of this problem arises out of the fears and apprehensions, born of history, of the men concerned: men who are insecure; men who have suffered, as some people have in the trade union field, in days gone by. They know full well that they had to set up protective measures in order to look after themselves. We accept that that ought to be a bygone thing but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not easy, when prejudices are deepseated and longstanding, to make them disappear by, as it were, a wave of the wand—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.